Update PR Template Requiring Abuse Contact for Subdomain Registry Requestors

[groundcat]

To address the issue:

• Open Q / Discussion: SHOULD Subdomain Registries be providing RDAP/Whois to be included in PSL? #1813

This PR introduces updates to the PR submission template to address the issue raised in #1813 concerning the accountability of subdomain registries and the need for abuse contact information.

The new requirements aims to require that requestors who operate subdomain registries provide easily accessible abuse contact information, such as an email address or a web form, which allows responsible parties to be contacted in the event of abuse or malicious activities.

---

cc @dnsguru @simon-friedberger

[wdhdev]

Suggested change

	**URL where abuse contact or abuse reporting form can be found**:
	**Abuse contact email address or web form**:

Maybe simplify it a bit

[groundcat]

Thank you for the suggestion @wdhdev ! The difference between URL where abuse contact or abuse reporting form can be found and Abuse contact email address or web form is subtle but somewhat important though.

• The original wording "URL where abuse contact or abuse reporting form can be found" aims to ask subdomain registry operators to provide a direct method on their website where internet users can report abuse. Ideally, anyone can easily reach the responsible party (i.e., the registry, a DDNS service, etc.) directly without relying on PSL to identify the abuse contact or forward abuse cases, which is not PSL’s role.
  • For example, if someone finds that a user at fake-bank.ip-dynamic.org (a subdomain managed by ClouDNS) is being malicious, they should be able to visit ip-dynamic.org, identify that the domain belongs to ClouDNS, and find clear instructions on how to report abuse directly to ClouDNS. The feedback loop from discovering abuse to reporting it should be straightforward and transparent.
• On the other hand, the alternative phrasing, "Abuse contact email address or web form," could lead requestors to only submit an abuse contact email address to PSL but not make it publicly visible or accessible to their users. However, I believe the intention of this change is to allow internet users to directly report abuse to the registry's website where they can access a properly maintained contact method (email or web form).

That said, I’m open to any further suggestions on how we can make this clearer or more effective in practice!

[wdhdev]

I agree, ignore this review then.

[simon-friedberger]

I suggest we simplify this by always requiring an abuse contact.

[groundcat]

The comments above the checkbox have been simplified