Versions Compared

Old Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Devan Reed

Saved on

compared with

New Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Devan Reed

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Motion - DNS Abuse Small Team Report

Submitted by: Mark Datysgeld

Seconded by: 

WHEREAS,

  1. The GNSO Council recognizes that the topic of DNS abuse is a longstanding topic and the GNSO has undertaken a variety of activities on this topic in the past, including considering which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and in particular, which are appropriate for ICANN to establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars[1].
  2. In February 2022, the GNSO Council tasked a small team consisting of Council members to consider what policy efforts, if any, the GNSO Council should consider undertaking to support the efforts already underway in the different parts of the community to tackle DNS abuse.
  3. As part of its deliberations, the small team reached out to all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the DNS Abuse Institute asking for input on what problem(s) policy development specifically is needed to mitigate, if any, as well as the expected outcomes if policy development would be undertaken.
  4. In considering the external input received, the small team realized that the suggestions provided can generally be allocated to one or more of the following three buckets:
    1. Issues that may benefit from education / communication / outreach;
    2. Issues that may benefit from contractual negotiations between ICANN org and Contracted Parties; and,
    3. Issues that may benefit from GNSO policy development.
  5. The small team delivered its report, containing 4 recommendations, to the GNSO Council on 10 October.
  6. The GNSO Council received a briefing on the report and its recommendations during its October Council meeting.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations as outlined in the DNS Abuse Small Team report and requests that the leadership of the small team works with Council leadership on developing the respective communications as foreseen under recommendations #2, #3 and #4.
  2. In relation to recommendation #1, the Council commits to considering requesting the development of a Preliminary Issue Report on the topic of malicious registrations after the outreach and communication as foreseen under recommendations #2, #3 and #4 have taken place and the Council has had an opportunity to consider the progress made from efforts related to that outreach. If the Council determines that a Preliminary Issue Report is needed, it must be undertaken in a way that avoids overlap and/or duplication of efforts.
  3. The GNSO Council thanks the small team for its efforts, as well as the community groups that contributed to it.

[1] Some past work includes:

Motion - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team recommendations for assignment #1 and #2

...

  1. The GNSO Council adopts recommendation #3 of the write up which recommends 1) pausing the work in relation to proposals that require access to registration data, 2) encouraging ICANN org to proceed with their outreach to the EDPB as well as the Data Protection Impact Assessment in connection with the scenario(s) in which the request and processing of registration data takes place as a matter of urgency, and 3) requests that ICANN org and Contracted Parties finalize the negotiations on the Data Processing Agreement (DPA) as soon as practicable as the absence of a completed DPA may act as a roadblock for policy work before Council.
  2. The GNSO Council defers consideration of recommendations #1 and #2 until such time the DPA negotiations between ICANN org and Contracted Parties have completed and there is feedback from ICANN org on if/how it anticipates the requesting and processing of registration data to be undertaken in the context of measuring accuracy.
  3. Once this feedback is received from ICANN org, the GNSO Council will review the formation and instructions to the Scoping Team to ensure these are still fit for purpose and request the Scoping Team to further consider potential proposals that require access to registration data as well as how these impact the existing recommendations #1 and #2 (e.g. should these still be considered by the GNSO Council for adoption, or in the context of proposals that require access to registration data these may no longer be relevant or a priority?).
  4. Taking into account the delay with which the write up was delivered, as well as some of the challenges that were shared with the Scoping Team’s Chair during his briefing to the Council, Council leadership will reach out informally to Scoping Team members to better understand the issues encountered to help inform the Council’s review of the formation and instructions.
  5. Council leadership is requested to send a communication to ICANN org in relation to recommendation #3 (as well as Contracted Parties in relation to the DPA) as well as communicate the Council’s decision to non-GNSO groups participating in this effort (ALAC, GAC and SSAC) as well as the Scoping Team.
  6. The GNSO Council thanks Michael Palage, outgoing Chair, and Olga Cavalli, outgoing Council liaison, for their efforts. As part of its review of the formation and instructions to the Scoping Team, the Council will consider next steps for finding new leadership for this effort.


Motion - DNS Abuse Small Team Report

Submitted by: Mark Datysgeld

Seconded by: 

WHEREAS,


  1. The GNSO Council recognizes that the topic of DNS abuse is a longstanding topic and the GNSO has undertaken a variety of activities on this topic in the past, including considering which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and in particular, which are appropriate for ICANN to establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars[1].
  2. In February 2022, the GNSO Council tasked a small team consisting of Council members to consider what policy efforts, if any, the GNSO Council should consider undertaking to support the efforts already underway in the different parts of the community to tackle DNS abuse.
  3. As part of its deliberations, the small team reached out to all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the DNS Abuse Institute asking for input on what problem(s) policy development specifically is needed to mitigate, if any, as well as the expected outcomes if policy development would be undertaken.
  4. In considering the external input received, the small team realized that the suggestions provided can generally be allocated to one or more of the following three buckets:
    1. Issues that may benefit from education / communication / outreach;
    2. Issues that may benefit from contractual negotiations between ICANN org and Contracted Parties; and,
    3. Issues that may benefit from GNSO policy development.
  5. The small team delivered its report, containing 4 recommendations, to the GNSO Council on 10 October.
  6. The GNSO Council received a briefing on the report and its recommendations during its October Council meeting.


RESOLVED,


  1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations as outlined in the DNS Abuse Small Team report and requests that the leadership of the small team works with Council leadership on developing the respective communications as foreseen under recommendations #2, #3 and #4.
  2. In relation to recommendation #1, the Council commits to considering requesting the development of a Preliminary Issue Report on the topic of malicious registrations after the outreach and communication as foreseen under recommendations #2, #3 and #4 have taken place and the Council has had an opportunity to consider the progress made from efforts related to that outreach. If the Council determines that a Preliminary Issue Report is needed, it must be undertaken in a way that avoids overlap and/or duplication of efforts.
  3. The GNSO Council thanks the small team for its efforts, as well as the community groups that contributed to it.


[1] Some past work includes: