Status

Final

Distribution

PublicDate

17 July 2023

Governmental Advisory Committee Comments on the Amendments to theBase gTLD Registry Agreement (RA) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement(RAA) to Modify DNS Abuse Contract Obligations

1. Summary
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) welcomes the proposed amendments to the generic
Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Agreement (RA) and 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)(collectively, the “Agreements”) to address Domain Name System Abuse (DNS Abuse).1
The GAC views the amendments as a significant achievement by ICANN org and the Contracted PartiesHouse Negotiating Team (CPH NT). The proposed amendments are timely and relevant and, whenadopted, will represent an important first step forward to combat DNS Abuse. The GAC supports theproposed amendments as a general matter, though invites ICANN org and the CPH NT to consider somespecific issues related to the text of the amendments. In light of the ongoing threat that DNS Abuseposes to consumers and the public and private sectors, it is imperative that the improved contracts areswiftly adopted following the completion of the Public Comment process. The GAC looks forward toengaging in subsequent work with the multistakeholder community on DNS Abuse after theamendments are adopted. This work should include Policy Development Processes (PDPs) to further
inform the updated RA and RAA, as well as other work on outstanding issues to address prior to thenext application round for New gTLDs.

1

See the corresponding ICANN Public Comment Proceeding page.

GAC Comments on the Amendments to the Base gTLD RA and RAA on DNS Abuse

Page 1

2. Introduction
The GAC has focused on DNS Abuse as a matter of public policy priority for several years, producing aStatement on DNS Abuse in 2019 and dedicating many sessions at ICANN meetings to the subject.2
Nearly all constituencies within ICANN have conducted work on DNS Abuse. Cross-community efforts
have also yielded contributions to the discussion.
The establishment of baseline obligations for gTLD Registries and Registrars (collectively, the“Contracted Parties”) to promptly take reasonable and appropriate action to stop or otherwise disrupt
DNS Abuse will constitute a milestone for ICANN in service of its mission, which is to ensure the stableand secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. The adoption of such measures will beseen as an important contribution to the work of ICANN ahead of the next application process for NewgTLDs.

3. The Importance of Adopting the Proposed Amendments
DNS Abuse has been the subject of multistakeholder discussions at ICANN for many years. Given
ICANN’s mission, it is important that the institution responds, particularly ahead of any further
delegation of New gTLDs. Therefore, the GAC welcomes the efforts to amend the Agreements toaddress DNS Abuse. Although further clarification is needed, the proposed amendments are timely andrelevant, and when adopted, will represent an important first step in combatting DNS Abuse.
All Governments are concerned by DNS Abuse. GAC representatives have noted with concern, interalia, the negative impacts of mobile phishing and increasing prevalence of ransomware attacks. The
GAC’s Public Safety Working Group (PSWG) has participated in many cross-community panels, capacity
development workshops, and GAC briefings that highlighted key statistics and case studies on theharms caused to individuals and organizations through the effects caused by DNS Abuse.3In light of the threats posed by DNS Abuse to consumers and the public and private sectors, it isimperative that the improved contracts are swiftly adopted following the completion of the Public
Comment process.
23

See https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-statement-on-dns-abuse (18 September 2019).
See most recently during the GAC Capacity Development Workshop on DNS Abuse (11 June 2023) during the presentation
on DNS Security Threats reported to Law Enforcement and by Law Enforcement

GAC Comments on the Amendments to the Base gTLD RA and RAA on DNS Abuse

Page 2

4. Specific issues for consideration
The GAC supports the proposed amendments as a general matter, though invites ICANN org and theCPH NT to consider some specific issues related to the text of the amendments as they finalize theirwork.
a. The DNS Abuse Definition: The GAC supports the proposed definition of DNS Abuse for thepurposes of the currently proposed amendments to the Agreements. The approach taken isconsistent with potential actions at the DNS level that fall well within ICANN’s remit.
b. Reporting and Monitoring by Contracted Parties:
i. Proactive Monitoring. As per the Washington Communiqué, the GAC encourages
registrars "to proactively monitor the Registered Names that they sponsor to identify
potential DNS Abuse" and stresses that registry operators should also obtain actionable
evidence through their own proactive efforts.4
ii.
Enhanced Transparency. Enhanced transparency through reporting supports
accountability. The GAC therefore suggests the parties consider how to enhance theproposed reporting requirements with a view to promoting transparency of theContracted Parties’ policies and how they respond to DNS Abuse reports.
c. Compliance Considerations:i. Consequences. The proposed amendments do not expressly include consequences fornon-compliance. A priori, these consequences depend on compliance action by ICANNorg, and should be based on the provisions found within the Agreements. To ensure thatthe aims of the contract negotiations are ultimately met, the GAC encourages ICANN org
and the CPH NT to specify, at a minimum, in the Advisory, what the consequences might
be in the event of non-compliance.
ii.
Ability to Monitor Enforcement. The data collected by ICANN org from the Contracted
Parties pursuant to the reporting obligations provided for within the Agreements will beinstrumental to enforcement, as well as understanding the overall effectiveness of thenew regime. The GAC encourages ICANN org in particular to provide the community withthe ability to monitor how compliance is enforced, and to link future work on DNS Abuse
with the review of such data.
4See section IV.4 p.7 at https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann77-washington-d-c-communique

GAC Comments on the Amendments to the Base gTLD RA and RAA on DNS Abuse

Page 3

The GAC also invites the contracted parties to reflect upon the following points:● The Inevitable Evolution of DNS Abuse: The nature of Internet technology is one of constantchange and new threats emerge on a regular basis. SAC115, notes that “no particular list ofabuse types will ever be comprehensive.”5 The GAC therefore supports periodic review of thedefinition of DNS Abuse, as suggested in SAC115. Such review “should involve stakeholders
from consumer protection, operational cybersecurity, academic or independent
cybersecurity research, law enforcement and e-commerce.”6
As forms of DNS Abuse evolve, so will the scenarios. The Advisory should therefore be
updated from time to time by gathering and analyzing actual use cases. The PSWG of theGAC could play a helpful role in this regard, as many PSWG members have firsthandexperience in investigating DNS Abuse.
● Recognizing the Need to Address DNS Abuse Both Inside and Outside of ICANN: The GAC
recognizes that abuse on the Internet is not limited to the definition of DNS Abuse proposed
for the purposes of the Agreements, and sees the need for a broader set of stakeholders,
including those engaged at ICANN but also beyond its remit (e.g. Hosting Companies), towork together towards solutions for addressing illegal activity on the Internet. In this vein,
the role of trusted notifier frameworks or allow lists, which could enable a broader set ofactors to better handle abuse on a grander scale, merits consideration.
● Policy Development Processes: The GAC anticipates a series of targeted PDPs to supplement
the contract amendments once they are adopted. These PDPs should be narrowly tailored toproduce timely and workable outcomes. Possible areas of focus include:○ Guidance on Key Terms. The GAC encourages refinement of and guidance on theinterpretation of key terms such as “appropriate,” “prompt,” “actionable,” and“reasonable.” The GAC recognizes that such terms are intentionally left open to afforda measure of flexibility; the Contracted Parties are not a monolith. The
appropriateness and promptness of the actions will depend on the specificcircumstances of each case. At the same time, these key terms could be further
refined through multistakeholder work. As one example, the establishment of a set of5See section 2.1 p. 12-13 of SAC115, the SSAC Report on an Interoperable Approach to Addressing Abuse Handling in theDNS (19 March 2021)
6SAC 115 at p, 13 citing Second Stability and Security Review Team Final Report Recommendation 10.2

GAC Comments on the Amendments to the Base gTLD RA and RAA on DNS Abuse

Page 4

indicators or data elements for “Actionable Evidence” could assist greatly withcompliance action. As another example, further guidance regarding “Appropriate
Mitigation Actions” to be taken by parties to address different cases of DNS Abuse
could also be helpful.
○ Due process considerations. Such work could focus on ways in which to appeal
suspension of a domain name by the registrant in such cases where they maintainthat the decision to take action was not warranted.
○ Systemic Abuse. The issue of how to address persistent DNS Abuse activity byrecidivist registrants deserves further policy work. Both the CCT and SSR2 review
teams have offered recommendations on this topic that could provide a usefulfoundation for future efforts including but not limited to:
1. Consideration of provisions aimed at preventing systemic use of specificregistrars or registries for DNS Security Abuse which could include identifying
thresholds of abuse at which compliance inquiries are automaticallytriggered, with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries arepresumed to be in default of their agreements; and,2. Positive incentives for positive results in tackling abuse (financial andnon-financial).
○ Training. DNS Abuse prevention and mitigation training schemes for the existing andnew actors in the ecosystem.

5. Conclusion
The GAC offers these comments as a contribution to the Public Comment process. We would be happyto have further dialogue with ICANN org and the Contracted Parties to elaborate on any of the above
points.

GAC Comments on the Amendments to the Base gTLD RA and RAA on DNS Abuse

Page 5