ICANN 83: Difference between revisions

Line 33:

Councilors highlighted the value of using these findings in future strategic planning sessions (e.g. the Council Strategic Planning Session) and in the SCCI’s work on PDP-related continuous improvement.<ref name="gnso"></ref>

== Registration Data Accuracy Small Team ==

The [[Registration Data Accuracy Small Team]] presented a progress update based on work that included analysis of the [[INFERMAL]] study and documentation from registrars on current validation practices.

The Small Team was exploring options to improve outcomes in handling accuracy complaints, with particular attention to shortening the time window for registrants to respond to accuracy-related notices as a way to reduce the window of malicious activity associated with inaccurate contact data.

Councilors from registrar and non-commercial communities flagged tensions between, on the one hand, pressure to shorten response timelines to reduce abuse and, on the other, concerns about due process and privacy impacts. The update stressed that the INFERMAL study is used as one input rather than definitive evidence and that any recommendations must respect privacy and human-rights considerations.

The Small Team was working towards preliminary recommendations that could lead to further Council deliberations or future GNSO policy work (for example, a scoped PDP or new guidance to existing policies).<ref name="gnso"></ref>

== DNS Abuse Small Team ==

The DNS Abuse Small Team reported on its ongoing effort to compile and analyze a comprehensive “gap matrix” mapping DNS abuse-related issues across ICANN policies, contracts, and community work.

During ICANN 83 the team used discussions in Prague, including the CPH DNS Abuse Community Update, ALAC’s DNS abuse plenary, and GAC-related sessions, to refine the list of gaps and source documents and to solicit further input from stakeholder groups and advisory committees.

The work plan foresaw structuring and clustering identified gaps, then prioritizing them and feeding the result into a GNSO issue report. That issue report could in turn form the basis for one or more PDPs or other policy mechanisms, depending on the scope and community bandwidth.

The Council discussed whether DNS Abuse issues should be grouped into a single issue report or split into several, and how to balance proactive and reactive measures while being mindful of potential human-rights implications and the limits of policy as a tool for every identified gap.

== References ==

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Councilors highlighted the value of using these findings in future strategic planning sessions (e.g. the Council Strategic Planning Session) and in the SCCI’s work on PDP-related continuous improvement.<ref name="gnso"></ref>
+== Registration Data Accuracy Small Team ==
+The [[Registration Data Accuracy Small Team]] presented a progress update based on work that included analysis of the [[INFERMAL]] study and documentation from registrars on current validation practices.
+The Small Team was exploring options to improve outcomes in handling accuracy complaints, with particular attention to shortening the time window for registrants to respond to accuracy-related notices as a way to reduce the window of malicious activity associated with inaccurate contact data.
+Councilors from registrar and non-commercial communities flagged tensions between, on the one hand, pressure to shorten response timelines to reduce abuse and, on the other, concerns about due process and privacy impacts. The update stressed that the INFERMAL study is used as one input rather than definitive evidence and that any recommendations must respect privacy and human-rights considerations.
+The Small Team was working towards preliminary recommendations that could lead to further Council deliberations or future GNSO policy work (for example, a scoped PDP or new guidance to existing policies).<ref name="gnso"></ref>
+== DNS Abuse Small Team ==
+The DNS Abuse Small Team reported on its ongoing effort to compile and analyze a comprehensive “gap matrix” mapping DNS abuse-related issues across ICANN policies, contracts, and community work.
+During ICANN 83 the team used discussions in Prague, including the CPH DNS Abuse Community Update, ALAC’s DNS abuse plenary, and GAC-related sessions, to refine the list of gaps and source documents and to solicit further input from stakeholder groups and advisory committees.
+The work plan foresaw structuring and clustering identified gaps, then prioritizing them and feeding the result into a GNSO issue report. That issue report could in turn form the basis for one or more PDPs or other policy mechanisms, depending on the scope and community bandwidth.
+The Council discussed whether DNS Abuse issues should be grouped into a single issue report or split into several, and how to balance proactive and reactive measures while being mindful of potential human-rights implications and the limits of policy as a tool for every identified gap.
 == References ==
 {{reflist}}