Hi, KC. 

I think your suggestion of a DAAR  update is a good one, and suggest you send staff a question on the status and expected posting date. This can be logged in SSR2 questions and we can track the response.

It’s relevant to issues involving both SSR1 implementation and internal and external SSR2 issues.

Through the Business Constituency, I have been following DAAR and related reports from their inception, and the BC has received several "it's on its way" updates on DAAR over the years. I don’t recall anything since Abu Dhabi, however. 

(Separate from DAAR) On your question about the registry constituency comments on ICANN’S implementation of the CCCT Review abuse-related recommendation, they are in-line with both the registry and registrar groups’ historic position of minimizing ICANN/ICANN Compliance’s ability to get data from registrars and registries relating to DNS abuse.  It’s not a position that several other ICANN groups share.

Best,

Denise

Denise Michel

Director, Domain Name System Strategy & Management

Facebook, Inc.

denisemichel@fb.com

On 11/22/18, 9:24 AM, "Ssr2-review on behalf of k claffy" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kc@caida.org> wrote:

    all,

    i've been reviewing transcripts from meetings last year

    and wonder if it's possible to get an update from ICANN

    on the DAAR system? more than a year has gone by and i

    wonder if the thinking/use/analysis/impact has evolved at all.

    or is there an updated web page i should be reading?

    e.g., there is a line from steve that says:

                The current status as far as I know is that, again, I

                think were having a session in Abu Dhabi to start

                determining what the community wants to see out of it

    [ do we know what the outcome of that conversation was?  ]

    and

                what we want to do is we want to make it a better place

                out there for the consumers, not necessarily say, Well,

                this registrar or registry is a bad actor, and because

                all these other people are bad, that doesnt necessarily

                make them the bad actor.

                ...

                Whether or not theres going to be a plan, Id have to

                get back to the various departments and see.

    here is the report from that meeting:

    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1QsvBp4GNW-5FTILEos29YQxTb4ZH7qcQFAh-5F4e0XgxDSg_edit&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=Ah8OYQ17eiieX_HA0fwbzmGMTw6CM0Xu_fAwLDpCTrI&s=KHk9SJjmnkah-TtRD8vqyJIXDchUmbv_zDe0eghi2Wc&e=

    which seems to have more questions than answers in it.

    i wonder if this is a reasonable place for this subgroup

    to re-start?

    also i wonder if anyone is following:

    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_contractual-2Dcompliance-2Daddressing-2Ddomain-2Dname-2Dsystem-2Ddns-2Dinfrastructure-2Dabuse&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=Ah8OYQ17eiieX_HA0fwbzmGMTw6CM0Xu_fAwLDpCTrI&s=80EXJ7o6j3dd6bvkI5Pe-1fedleMDACvFKHQvOkz2cM&e=

    and in particular RySG's comment on it at the bottom.

    not surprising, but, any thoughts?  this seems like

    something we should be considering..

    k

    _______________________________________________

    Ssr2-review mailing list

    Ssr2-review@icann.org

    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=Ah8OYQ17eiieX_HA0fwbzmGMTw6CM0Xu_fAwLDpCTrI&s=VKc2xtT_4-b55_hh8teHFn8Kv7fEWW1IffUd24A3h1w&e=