Dear Alejandra,

I am in full agreement.

NA-NiC does not have a view as far as other TLDs are concerned, and I have been careful to avoid expressing anything that could be construed as view, when engaging with the group, which was basically only for housekeeping.

Our position as far as .NA is concerned, is by the way, while we have next to no DNS Abuse to speak of, we will require a court order of a Namibia Court (i.e. High Court). We do not engage, AT ALL, with third parties, only with the Registrar of Record, not even the Registrant.

If there was a law suit (in the Namibian High Court) we would engage with Plaintiff beforehand (during the Pleadings stage) to become a "Friendly Defendant" ie, while we would need to be joined anyway, we would not enter a Defense and (of course) abide by the Court's decision, as long as the Plaintiff does not seek costs against us.

I think this is somewhat similar to the model .NZ had some years back.

In practice, we subscribe to abuse monitoring services, which trigger a few times per year, and we then engage with the Registrar of Record (only) and point the issue out. They then so far have always resolved the issue speedily, and usually the Registrant was a victim as well.

Once in a while we note Registrations which fall foul of our published policies and in virtually all cases pointing this out to the Registrar of Record has resulted in achieving compliance.

Again, .NA does not have a position with regard to any other TLD, cc or g, and we absolutely agree with the ccNSO not having one either.

Perhaps I shall place that after our Zoom call, of which I am in full support, onto the Wg's record (by way of email).

greetings, el

On Feb 19, 2026 at 14:17 +0200, Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com>, wrote:

Dear Eberhard, Bruce, Nick and Diego

First, let me thank you again for stepping forward to participate in the GNSO PDP1 on DNS Abuse. Your willingness to contribute your time and expertise is sincerely appreciated and reflects the strength of our community.

I appreciate the timely initiative to coordinate and streamline your contributions, particularly to share the ccNSO perspective. In this context, I would like to let you know that Paul McGrady, the preliminary Chair of the Working Group, has approached me requesting early written input from the ccNSO. In my response to Paul, I will refer to the ccNSO Council Resolution 225-01, which states that “[...] the ccNSO does not have a view, nor holds a position on the matter addressed through the PDP, nor do the members represent a view or position of ccTLDs in general.”

Circling back to the coordination and streamlining of contributions from a ccNSO perspective, I suggest clarifying from the start that neither the ccNSO Council nor the ccNSO membership holds a shared view on this matter. Of course, you are very welcome to share your own views, knowledge, and experience, including references to relevant presentations, discussions, surveys, and other materials throughout the process. If needed, we can assist you in soliciting perspectives from others.

I also agree that it is important for the group to meet and review your respective roles and expectations. As Nick will not be attending the ICANN meeting in person (and I am unsure about Diego’s plans), it would be helpful to arrange a Zoom call before we begin traveling. If you agree, the Secretariat will reach out shortly to identify a suitable time for a call with the ccNSO leadership.

Best regards,
Alejandra

*******************************************
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.
Sing like nobody's listening.
And live like it's Heaven on Earth.
*******************************************

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 10:44 PM Bruce Tonkin <bruce.tonkin@auda.org.au> wrote:

Hello Eberhard,

>> please note that I can not make the Monday session in Mumbai, due to TechDay.

Thanks for letting us know. I understand that Nick Wenban-Smith will not be in Mumbai in-person but will join remotely when he can.

I will be in Mumbai and will step in to face-to-face working group meetings as an alternate, and will chair face-to-face meetings of the ccNSO DNS Abuse group (DASC), whilst in Mumbai.

>> should we have occasional but perhaps regular meetings (F2F during ICANN Meetings, Zoom in between) to exchange views from ccNSO Perspective, streamline our position and/or decide if we need to engage with Council?

>> As I am not sure Diego and I have met, we 4 should in any case have Tea or something in Mumbai.

I think that is a good idea to meet each other as a group, and also touch base as a group to exchange views on the PDP during the week.

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin