Thanks Nick. I don’t disagree and we will be looking at all the questions. While we can get the Strawpersons fairly stable, we may have revisit/edit on a rolling basis depending on how the other questions are answered. Agree that we don’t
have to draft RAA sections, but I do think it is a useful exercise that will help us boil down the essentials into high level Consensus Policy and leave us with some terrific content for any Implementation Guidance we wish to provide.
The key right now is ideation coming after discussions rather than thinking we need to have each question serve as a gate to the next one. Gates stink.
Best,
Paul
|
|
Paul
McGrady Partner Elster & McGrady 434 Houston St,
Suite 261 Nashville, TN 37203 3847 N. Lincoln Avenue Second Floor Chicago, IL 60613 Office Direct: +1 (312) 515-4422 |
From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 5:21 AM
To: Brian F. Cimbolic <brian@pir.org>; Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>; anil Jain via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>; Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Straw Proposal
Aw Paul you are spoiling our fun, drafting by remote committee is excellent viewing.
Seriously though, I think in Mumbai we only really touched on the first of the nine questions set out in the Charter, namely what's the trigger for an ADC. I think that was settled pretty quickly in fact, it's
when a registrar knows (or ought to know) that it has a malicious registration on its hands per RRA 3.18.2.
However while I think it's really helpful to test out some ideas for how the contractual wording might look like in the black and white text (and in particular to align with existing terminology in the RRA at an
early stage), I am not sure we as a group have really grappled with the more tricky questions which are to come including the definition of "associated domain" and also what "investigation" means in practice in this context for the registrars concerned (questions
2 & 3 in the charter). Until those have been discussed and some basic principles agreed then I think there's limited progress that can be made in putting that into meaningful wording which would be actionable in a compliance sense.
Best wishes
Nick
From: Paul McGrady via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Sent: 19 March 2026 09:40
To: Brian F. Cimbolic <brian@pir.org>; Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>; anil Jain via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Straw Proposal
|
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take extra care when replying, clicking links or opening attachments.
|
Thanks Brian. I am meeting with Staff today and I hope we can get this Strawperson language into a Google Doc for folks to comment on. Keeping track of this via email string is going to be impossible with a group this size. Please stay
tuned and do add your suggestions to Q1 Strawperson as soon as we get that Google Doc live.
Best,
Paul
|
|
Paul
McGrady Partner Elster & McGrady 434 Houston St,
Suite 261 Nashville, TN 37203 3847 N. Lincoln Avenue Second Floor Chicago, IL 60613 Office Direct: +1 (312) 515-4422 |
From: Brian F. Cimbolic via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 4:14 PM
To: Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>; anil Jain via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Straw Proposal
Hi all - First, thank you all for some great sessions to kick this work off in Mumbai. I thought we already made a lot of progress in our first working session.
In advance of Monday’s call, I wanted to float a slightly modified version of the Strawman that Reg (very helpfully!) provided below. I provide a clean version, as well as a screenshot of Redlines so we can all
see exactly what I’m proposing we change.
Summary of proposed tweaks:
- The actual obligation to mitigate DNS Abuse in the RAA is found in 3.18.2, rather than the broader 3.18, which includes other unrelated provisions. Tightening that subsection reference
should make it clearer where an Associated Domain Check comes into play.
- I tried to harmonize the language from Reg’s version with the terms and definitions set forth in the RAA already. So rather than “domains,” it’s “Registered Name” (again, simply to match the
RAA defined terms). 3.18.2 also references “mitigation action(s)” so I incorporated that verbiage rather than the more generic “action."
- 3.18.2 already requires that Registrars take mitigation action(s) when they have actionable evidence of DNS Abuse. If the Associated Domain Check is fruitful and the Registrar finds such actionable
evidence of abuse, it is similarly obligated to take mitigation action(s). So, I suggest striking the “and take action against those domains where appropriate” as redundant.
REDLINE:
CLEAN:
When a registrar takes mitigation action(s) on a Registered Name under Section 3.18.2 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the registrar shall promptly review other reasonably
associated Registered Name(s) to determine whether such Registered Name(s) may be involved in DNS Abuse using information reasonably available to the registrar at the time of review.
Looking forward to the call on Monday. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian
|
|
|
||
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received
in error, please inform sender and then delete.