Hi Lawrence,
Apologies for not getting your comment quite right. The usual caveat applies to the notes that staff provides – they should not be considered a substitute for recordings and where available, transcripts. Thank you though for clarifying
your point in your email.
Best,
Steve
From: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts" <lawrence@microboss.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 5:41 PM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Meeting Notes 3 July 2025 DNS Abuse
Thanks for the notes Steve. Am not satisfied with the frame of capture on my point as it impacts the
Review of G6, G7, and G21.
Again whilst we would like to be careful on issues around pricing, it does have a significant impact on the scale of DNS Abuse. To mitigate this, we would expect
that the business put in place certain key measures before providing discounted rates with a view to eliminating opportunities for such programs to be used by bad actors. For this reason we presume further policy work in necessary.
-----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are
those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before
printing this email.
|
From: Steve Chan via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 5:00:50 PM
To: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Meeting Notes 3 July 2025 DNS Abuse
Dear All,
Please see the notes and actions items from the DNS Abuse Small Team call on 3 July 2025.
Best,
Steve
DNS
Abuse Small Team Wiki
Action Items
-
Pull in Farzaneh and NCSG comments into the worksheet
-
Add the gap to the list (informing a complainant of the outcome of the investigation)
-
Small team members to review gap report preliminary recommendations document by Thursday, 10 July
-
Distribute Doodle poll to reschedule Thurs call
Welcome
Discuss List of Gaps
– New Feedback
-
Reviewing G1
-
Here and in general, the At-Large focused on identifying topics that they believe are high priority. Confirmed that the At-Large focused on determining which issues should be investigated.
-
Retail registrars will have visibility, but resellers might not.
-
An associated domain check must be done with care. There is the possibility of profiling, infringement of privacy.
-
Important considerations that will be relevant to deliberations, not necessarily the time to go into details now. The framing of this topic might be too prescriptive. Agreement that it’s hard to
refrain from discussing merits of the issues and trying to develop solutions.
-
Clear interest in including this topic for policy development.
Action Item: Pull in Farzaneh and NCSG comments into the
worksheet
-
Reviewing G10
-
Data feeds need to be considered with a grain of salt.
-
Reviewing G17 and G27
-
The RySG doesn’t see this topic as a subject for policy development, but the At-Large sees it a high priority item. The most important element/gap is informing a complainant of the outcome of the
investigation.
-
The CSG also noted the gap. Not seeking to be prescriptive about whether this topic would warrant policy development.
-
Important to coordinate both the submission of complaints as well as the point raised by the At-Large.
-
However, if the Ry/Rrs are not compelled to provide a response, would they still do it? Policy development could ensure that this is a baseline requirement, for both the collection and resolution
of complaints.
-
There are already requirements for Ry/Rrs to have a mechanism to accept complaints. However, there seems to be a lack of education for reporters, which may not warrant policy development.
Action Item: Add the gap to the list (informing a complainant
of the outcome of the investigation).
-
Reviewing G19 and G24 – no comments
-
Reviewing G31, G4, and G13
-
In respect of G4, RySG had already identified as a gap. Believe it warrants additional work.
-
NCSG also believes that this is a high-priority. Concern about attributing the identification of the issue to only NetBeacon WP.
-
Reviewing G13
-
Divergence about whether this topic warrants policy development. CSG believes it is important to close the loop, accepting that cases can be so different.
-
A path could be to increase the baseline of actions warranted, but dictating timeframes can be problematic.
-
Clarification that the SLAs could be for specific types of abuse, not all types.
-
Clarification that the 24 hr response time is for LEA
-
Reviewing G15 and G20
-
At-Large did not seek to determine the path to resolve gaps. It may indeed be the case that this gap would not warrant policy development.
-
Reviewing G29 - none
-
Reviewing G2, G9, G12, and G25
-
G9 and G12 do seem like a gap, it seems like a compliance issue.
-
Suggestion to combine G2 and G1
-
Concerns about the obligations of resellers.
-
NCSG does not believe G12 is a gap.
-
Reviewing G6, G7, and G21
-
NCSG does not think pricing should even be in consideration as a best practice
-
Bylaws prevent policy development about pricing.
-
Suggestion that the Issue Report will help clarify what is and is not appropriate for policy development. Therefore, it might actually be helpful to include.
-
General question about how Bylaws changes can be effectuated.
-
Clash with Council call. Need to consider rescheduling if we want to review line by line.
-
Reminder of focus – the small team’s report should highlight what should and should not be included in the Issue Report.
Discuss Preliminary Recommendations Document
-
Consider adding a note that in respect of certain issues, a PDP might not be the only or best outcome.
-
In respect of the PDP itself, wariness of parallel processes.
-
Need to clarify language about recommendation for PDP
Action Item: Small team members to review gap report preliminary
recommendations document by Thursday, 10 July
Action Item: Distribute Doodle poll to reschedule Thurs
call
Prioritization Discussion from Preliminary Recommendations Document
AOB
Steven Chan
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email:
steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting:
https://learn.icann.org/
Follow @GNSO on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the
GNSO
Master Calendar