Hi everyone,
As you must have read from the update Wisdom shared a while back, some
questions were asked during an outreach by the small team and though our
community didn't provide any feedback to Wisdom's email, I think it will be
a good idea for us to provide some sort of official response to those
questions back to the small team.
N.B: I went to observe the small teams meeting last week and realised that
all other SGs have or are planning to provide responses to those questions.
I have taken the liberty to draft
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hg468obYDwylFQ6q-3AX6m7UxZvNY1EXGpBFJ-W…>
a few responses, which I hope you all can make changes to it as well to
better reflect our position on DNS abuse. The Google doc is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hg468obYDwylFQ6q-3AX6m7UxZvNY1EXGpBFJ-W…
The Questions again are:
What specific problem(s) would policy development in particular be expected
to address and why do you believe that policy development is the right
mechanism to solve those problems?
Proposed Response: The NCSG does not believe there are any problems
discussed in the community that require policy development effort.
Moreover, a common definition of DNS abuse which is in alignment with
ICANN’s bylaws and technical remit first needs to be adopted by the
community.
What do you believe are the expected outcomes if policy development would
be undertaken, taking into account the remit of ICANN and more specifically
GNSO policy development in this context?
Proposed Response: None, since we do not see any problem requiring policy
development.
Do you (or your community group) have any expectations with regards to
possible next steps the GNSO Council could or should undertake in the
context of policy development?
Proposed Response: Our expectation of next steps is for a common community
definition of DNS abuse which is in alignment with ICANN’s bylaws and
technical remit.
Tomslin
