14,952
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: − + +
no edit summary
====GAC====
====GAC====
*The GAC Public Safety Working Group ([[PSWG]]) advocated for improved measures to combat DNS Abuse, explained the importance of [[WHOIS]] data and mitigating DNS Abuse, shared U.K. and U.S. [[cybercrime]] statistics, and updated the GAC on [[DNS Abuse Responses|initiatives]] from the community.<ref>[https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann76-cancun-communique?language_id=1 ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org]</ref>
*The GAC Public Safety Working Group ([[PSWG]]) advocated for improved measures to combat DNS Abuse, explained the importance of [[WHOIS]] data and mitigating DNS Abuse, shared U.K. and U.S. [[cybercrime]] statistics, and updated the GAC on [[DNS Abuse Responses|initiatives]] from the community.<ref>[https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann76-cancun-communique?language_id=1 ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org]</ref>
*The GAC expressed concerns over the negotiations in relation to Recommendations 14 (ICANN should include provisions in the agreements to provide incentives, including financial incentives for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg98]</ref>) and 15 (ICANN should establish thresholds of abuse at which [[Contractual Compliance]] inquiries are automatically triggered, with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements. If the community determines that ICANN org itself is ill-suited or unable to enforce such provisions, a DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy (DADRP) should be considered as an additional means to enforce policies and deter DNS Security Abuse<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg99]</ref>) from the [[First Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review|Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review]].
*The GAC expressed concerns over the negotiations in relation to Recommendations 14 (ICANN should include provisions in the agreements to provide incentives, including financial incentives for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg98]</ref>) and 15 (ICANN should establish thresholds of abuse at which [[Contractual Compliance]] inquiries are automatically triggered, with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements. For example, if the community determines that ICANN org itself is ill-suited or unable to enforce such provisions, then a DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy (DADRP) should be considered as an additional means to enforce policies and deter DNS Security Abuse<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg99]</ref>) from the [[First Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review|Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review]].
*The Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network explained to the GAC in detail its framework for [[DNS Abuse Responses]]
===DNSSEC===
===DNSSEC===