Changes

===DNS Security Threat Audits===

===DNS Security Threat Audits===

In November 2018, ICANN Contractual Compliance (Compliance) launched a Registry Operator Audit for Addressing DNS Security Threats.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/contractual-compliance-addressing-domain-name-system-dns-infrastructure-abuse-8-11-2018-en ICANN.org Blog - Contractual Compliance Addressing DNS Infrastructure Abuse], November 8, 2018</ref> The audit was conducted over seven months, from November 2018 to June 2019.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-publishes-registry-operator-audit-for-addressing-dns-security-threats-17-9-2019-en CC Audit of DNS Security Threats, ICANN Announcements]</ref> The report on the audit, released in September 2017, reported that of the 1207 TLDs reviewed during the audit, "approximately five percent (5%) of the audited ROs subject to Specification 11, Section 3(b) were not performing any security threat monitoring, despite having domains registered in their gTLDs."<ref name="19audit">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-registry-operator-audit-report-17sep19-en.pdf ICANN.org - Report on the RO Audit for Addressing DNS Security Threats], September 17, 2019 (PDF)</ref> The report noted that many of the non-complying registries had a limited number of registrations:

In November 2018, ICANN Contractual Compliance launched a Registry Operator Audit for Addressing DNS Security Threats.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/contractual-compliance-addressing-domain-name-system-dns-infrastructure-abuse-8-11-2018-en ICANN.org Blog - Contractual Compliance Addressing DNS Infrastructure Abuse], November 8, 2018</ref> The audit was conducted over seven months, from November 2018 to June 2019.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-publishes-registry-operator-audit-for-addressing-dns-security-threats-17-9-2019-en CC Audit of DNS Security Threats, ICANN Announcements]</ref> The report on the audit, released in September 2017, reported that of the 1207 TLDs reviewed during the audit, "approximately five percent (5%) of the audited ROs subject to Specification 11, Section 3(b) were not performing any security threat monitoring, despite having domains registered in their gTLDs."<ref name="19audit">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-registry-operator-audit-report-17sep19-en.pdf ICANN.org - Report on the RO Audit for Addressing DNS Security Threats], September 17, 2019 (PDF)</ref> The report noted that many of the non-complying registries had a limited number of registrations:

<blockquote>In most of these cases, ROs cited a low number of registrations or tightly controlled and exclusively internal registration (e.g., where the gTLD has an ICANN-approved Specification 13 .brand designation). While the audit revealed that RBLs currently do not identify any threats originating from .brand gTLDs, Compliance explained to these ROs that monitoring is a contractual obligation that does not depend on the number or type of registrations. Remediation was required in all cases.<ref name="19audit" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>In most of these cases, ROs cited a low number of registrations or tightly controlled and exclusively internal registration (e.g., where the gTLD has an ICANN-approved Specification 13 .brand designation). While the audit revealed that RBLs currently do not identify any threats originating from .brand gTLDs, Compliance explained to these ROs that monitoring is a contractual obligation that does not depend on the number or type of registrations. Remediation was required in all cases.<ref name="19audit" /></blockquote>

The report stated that, incidences of noncompliance notwithstanding, most registry operators employed good practices.<ref name="19audit" />

The report stated that, incidences of noncompliance notwithstanding, most registry operators employed good practices.<ref name="19audit" />