Yes Tomslin, I think on balance it does. I hate to say it, because we
are super overloaded and we should really do these things
sequentially....i.e. wait till we finish epdp 2a, and get further in the
implementation. But maybe we ought to support the idea....it is
certainly a good item to discuss with our colleagues in the contracted
party house. They might prefer to negotiate on abuse in their private
contractual arrangements....remember that over the past several years,
the sessions on abuse which they held with public safety wg were often
closed to us. And they are the ones feeling the sharp end of the stick
on enforcement action from GDD. However, there are so many issues to
resolve on abuse, not the least of which are the sponginess of the
definitions, and the scope creep, that a pdp might be the best idea all
round.
cheers Steph
On 2021-02-06 6:47 p.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL:*
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Thanks for the additional points.
> Your 4th point on SubPro and voluntary commitments on DNS abuse caught
> my attention. Doesn't SubPro's final report statement in
> Recommendation 9.15, that "this PDP Working Group is not making any
> recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other
> than stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing
> and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs)", mean in other words, go make
> policy on DNS abuse in other fora and groups?
>
> I think you articulated the concern of actions on DNS abuse being
> taken in fora where we have no influence over very well. Does that
> leave us in support for the SSR2 Recommendation 15 for a EPDP on
> anti-abuse policy? I think it does.
>
> cheers
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at 07:42, Stephanie E Perrin
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for this Bruna, and my apologies for missing this
> meeting. As I spammed the list lately, somehow I am missing a lot
> of ICANN-related emails, and it is impossible to predict when they
> are being caught in spam control as many still get through.
>
> if I might add the following points to the excellent discussion
> which I gleaned from the recording and chat:
>
> * we do need to agree on definitions and mechanisms for policy
> development amongst NCSG. I do not think this will be
> difficult, we seem to agree on a narrow, technical scope
> * Abuse has been raised forever, along with its twin policy
> bugbear "accuracy" of RDS data. This has become significantly
> worse since the 2018 amendments to the 2013 RAA and subsequent
> removal of personal data from the "WHOIS". we have been
> playing whack-a-mole on this issue, with 3 separate high
> interest sessions on it at the last meeting (which we were
> unable to stop)
> * There is a significant risk that actions will be taken to deal
> with the issue in fora where we as NCSG have no input. Note
> that the contracted parties are currently working on two
> different types of contractual arrangements with ICANN....the
> new Registrars Accreditation Agreement, where we have no input
> but they may throw a bone to their adversaries by including
> abuse remedies, and the joint controller/processor agreements
> with ICANN wherein they figure out who is responsible for what
> in the processing of personal information. In both of these
> we have no input. There is a proposal on the table to deal
> with abuse in a PDP, with the same representation as we have
> on the EPDP....I am suspicious of this move as I am with all
> such moves, and I sure don't need another committee to work on
> as I am overloaded with Council, EPDP, legal cttee on EPDP,
> and the IRT.....but it might be a safer, MS environment to
> deal with issues like accuracy, abuse, and the "public interest".
> * In terms of Subpro, doubtless there are voluntary commitments
> being made WRT abuse and abuse mitigations as we move forward
> with new TLDs. We have expressed our concerns about these
> "voluntary" commitments in the past, and we need to discuss
> with our members who were on that group, to find out what was
> going on there, and to what extent policy is being written
> through these commitments in a de facto manner
> * this is a rather small point, but I dislike using the term
> "task force"....it seems to imply action on our part, a
> commitment to achieve a task. We don't actually run the DNS,
> register names, or deal with access requests, and we need to
> keep that in mind. As NCSG, we participate in policy
> development....so I would suggest we call this the NCSG Abuse
> policy discussion forum.
>
> I am looking forward to the next meeting!
>
> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2021-02-04 12:24 p.m., Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>> *EXTERNAL EMAIL:*
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Thank you so much for joining this initial call. I am just
>> sharing with you our action points and a few documents:
>>
>> 1. Action points
>> - Confirm call with the CPH Working Group on DNS abuse -
>> tentatively next thursday, at 15h00 utc
>> - Map other positions and working definitions of DNS abuse across
>> the ICANN community; and
>> - Start drafting a Position Paper: NCSGs DNS abuse working
>> definition, concerns and process;
>> -- Draft place-holder
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CFa-qkgr6xAB5Lu-jkVTWGfR7-jjVPGSD-H8eNt212Y/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> 2. Documents
>> - Council Action Decision Radar
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Decision+Radar?preview=/150178775/155190556/GNSO_Council_Program_ADR_20210121.pdf>
>>
>> - CPH Definition of DNS Abuse
>> <https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CPH-Definition-of-DNS-Abuse.pdf>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>> */Bruna Martins dos Santos /*
>>
>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>> @boomartins
>
|
