Agree with Sarah that this feedback is constructive and appreciated. Thank you for taking the time! Gabriel From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 5:27 AM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: NCSG Feedback/Law enforcement domains Good morning SC, Thanks to Farzaneh for providing this thoughtful list of feedback, especially regarding #3 (periodic review of the list) which could pose security concerns otherwise. Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Pronouns: she/they Head, Policy & Privacy Tucows #MakingTheInternetBetter swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Responses to this email are processed according to the Tucows Privacy Policy<https://www.tucows.com/privacy> On 2025-05-09 2:25 p.m., farzaneh badii via Gnso-rdrs-sc wrote: Hello SC and Gabe, Thank you for raising the proposal regarding the submission of verified law enforcement domain names to ICANN for potential integration into the Registration Data Request System (RDRS). I've shared this with the NCSG and there is general support for the idea as a supplementary data point to help improve the credibility of law enforcement requests. Here is a summary of the key feedback and considerations: 1. Supplementary Signal Only There is consensus that verified law enforcement domains can be a useful additional signal but should not be treated as a definitive authentication mechanism. Disclosure decisions must continue to rely on rights-balancing considerations. 2. Spoofing Awareness The group noted the ease with which email addresses can be spoofed and emphasized the need to ensure ICANN and registrars understand this risk. Domain verification alone is not sufficient to establish authenticity. 3. Renewal and Maintenance Any verified domain list should include a mechanism for periodic review and renewal to avoid stale or misused entries-especially where multiple domains may exist within the same agency or department. 4. Toward a More Robust Solution While the domain-based check may be a useful palliative, it should be clearly framed as a temporary measure while a more robust authentication method is developed. 5. Review Timeline and Evaluation As a next step, the group recommends setting a review period of six months to evaluate progress toward a longer-term solution. This review could also look at how registrars are engaging with the verified domain signal-not necessarily by measuring an increase in granted requests, but rather by assessing registrar confidence and acceptance of this signal in their decision-making process. Overall, we welcome continued exploration of this approach, provided it is implemented with clear accountability safeguards, transparent review cycles, and an understanding that it is not a final solution. Best regards, Farzaneh _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list -- gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-rdrs-sc-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.