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
|