2026-04-13 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome (5 min)

2. Update Zoom Features/rules of engagement (5 min)

3. Update on Milestones for April/May 2026 ( 5 min)

4. Update on iterative approach on impact assessment (5 min)

5. Discussion Strawperson on CQ2 (40 min)

6. Deliberations on CQ 3 (25 min)

7. AOB (5 min)

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

  Slides:

PARTICIPATION

Apologies: Gabriel Andrews (GAC), Nick Wenban-Smith (Vice-Chair & ccNSO), Claire Craig(ALAC)

Alternate: Naoum Mengoudis (GAC), Bruce Tonkin (ccNSO), Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello (ALAC)

Attendance:

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

 Action Items:

1. Leadership with support from staff develop and circulate iterative assessment questionnaire/checklist/tool/document for WG consideration.

2. Staff to update strawpersons in Collaboration Document based on WG discussion. 

3. Staff to summarize discussion on CQ3 for WG consideration and follow-up discussion.

4. WG members to review Collaboration Document and suggest edits, changes, data, considerations and alternative language to strawpersons on CQ1 and CQ2. 

Important Links:

• Collaboration Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pLqNE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] 

• Wiki/Slides (below agenda): https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935755797/2026-04-13+DNS+Abuse+Mitigation+PDP1+WG [icann-community.atlassian.net] 

• Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/PxWfCxjeNcZxg9aCnPIiedR2Sq9GIJ-ky0jTB3GdxpmIuEgxG_gpAU7lKbQc4v8LlCxSzg37z6ZlaSzB.WB5hVlbOCRQd0BC8 [icann.zoom.us] 

High Level Notes:

1. Welcome (5 min)

2. Update Zoom Features/rules of engagement (5 min)

• Working group roles clarified:

·         Members expected to actively participate in meetings and in consensus call.

·         Participants can engage during deliberations but not in consensus call

·         Alternates only participate if the primary member is unavailable. 

·         Observers can attend calls but no right of posting and communicating in chat or via Email.

·         If alternates/observers want to share input to the WG they can do so via their SG rep.

3. Update on Milestones for April/May 2026 ( 5 min)

• 7 meetings completed. Achievements:

·         Leadership team finalized.

·         Work plan and timeline agreed and sent to Council.

·         Collaboration document established.

·         Deliberations continuing Charter Questions 1–3.

·         Strawperson progressing CQ1 and CQ2

• Remaining before ICANN86 - 6 meetings (around 9 hours total).

·         Planned work:

·         Discuss Cluster A (1-6) charter questions.

·         Consider early input for each question.

·         Develop strawperson draft text.

·         Begin initial impact assessment on draft language.

4. Update on iterative approach on impact assessment (5 min)

• Proposed Approach: Based on WG member input during ICANN86 conduct initial “lightweight”, iterative assessments per charter cluster. Final comprehensive assessment conducted at the end. Aim to avoid discovering “untenable” or “not board-ready” outcomes at the end. Lightweight/iterative approaches do NOT replace final required assessment. 

• Impact Assessments include:

·         Human rights [docs.google.com]

·         Global public interest [docs.google.com]

·         Existing consensus policies

5. Discussion Strawperson on CQ2 (40 min)

• Reminder on strawperson to CQ1 was presented.

• Strawperson for CQ2 was presented after. 

• Possible criteria for CQ2 MAY include but are not limited to:

·         Same account /customer /registrant /“end customer”

·         Common patterns or coordinated activity

·         Information reasonably available to registrar

• Some WG members noted minimum baseline obligations are needed

• Others emphasize variability across registrar business models

• “Customer,” “registrant,” “account,” “end customer” differ across models. Language should be updated accordingly.

• Not all registrars can access same data (e.g., IP, registrant info)

• Some WG members suggested to focus on same threat actor, same abusive scheme/campaign

6. Deliberations on CQ 3 (25 min)

• Chair presented CQ3 as well as the early input to CQ3 and themes from previous discussion that fit into this question. 

• Some WG members noted this CQ cannot be answered without agreeing on CQ2. 

• Some WG noted that “investigation must remain distinct from enforcement”.

• Chat input suggested checking at least one reliable internal data point, such as “same account/registrant email,” and using additional technical or abuse-intelligence signals where needed.

• Some Members noted the WG should consider the ICANN Advisory on DNS Abuse contract amendments: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/advisories/documents/advisory-compliance-with-dns-abuse-obligations-in-the-registrar-accreditation-agreement-and-the-registry-agreement-05-02-2024-en  

7. AOB (5 min)