Hi Tomslin Thanks for this. I think generally it's good but asking for a definition might open doors to other problems. Here is DNSAI response to the council small team letter: https://dnsabuseinstitute.org/dnsai-response-gnso-small-team-dns-abuse/ Basically Graeme is suggesting micro narrowly focused pdps on issues related to ICANN mandate. But I find it a curious suggestion. Does he mean they should have PDPs on each kind of DNS abuse that are in ICANN's registrar agreement? Farzaneh On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 7:35 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via ncsg-dns-abuse-wg < ncsg-dns-abuse-wg@icann.org> wrote:
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-WV...> 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-WV...
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
_______________________________________________ ncsg-dns-abuse-wg mailing list ncsg-dns-abuse-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-dns-abuse-wg
_______________________________________________ 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.