Hello Susan, I have some overarching procedural concerns and some points of clarification. (I haven't run this by NCSG yet) so I can't agree to anything as NCSG) I think the topics might be separate but they are interwoven. Selecting ADC as the first PDP arguing that the "community" wants it disregards NCSG's active participation in these processes and ignores our statements and points of caution. So probably "community minus NCSG" wants to prioritize ADC . The issue gets even worse when you look at the drafted charters and the final issue report. Most of our concerns were not taken into account in those charter questions. So we can't even say well we didn't want to prioritize ADC but at least we are going to be very careful and provide transparency and remedy in case ADC goes wrong. I also would appreciate an acknowledgment that NCSG did in fact at every stage mention the issues with ADC and this is not a surprise to the community (see the timeline below). It also worries me that it is being mentioned that the community wants to prioritize ADC with no reference to those comments, with no mention of how the decision was made. If we are relying on the poll that was taken during the dns abuse working session, first of all, even setting aside NCSG's position, 46% supported prioritizing ADC. That's not 50 percent or more. Secondly, even during the session we said the poll questions are not drafted well. Thirdly, I would have appreciated a conversation among the council, considering all these elements before the decision was made for us to prioritize ADC. Fourth, even if the majority wants ADC to go first based on public comments (a reference to those would have been good) would have been nice from the outset to say how NCSG's concerns will be taken into account. Being in the minority doesn't mean being wrong. In an ideal world we would have had a council meeting during which we would have decided together who should prioritize the topics and what should be prioritized. Should it be the council or should it be the working group participants. which topic should go first and why. If that topic goes first under what conditions it goes first (for example I have concerns that the PDP will be rushed to just get something out the door without having the necessary safeguards in place). Then discuss convening drafting teams, whether drafting teams for both topics or one topic at a time. In this world however, if we have to go with ADC, the charter must include robust questions on human rights impacts, due diligence, remedy mechanisms, transparency and accountability frameworks. so we need a drafting team for the charter. Resource considerations: Given our stated capacity constraints and our position as the primary advocate for registrant rights, allow adequate time for meaningful participation. under no circumstances rush the PDP at the expense of registrants being wronged. Thank you for your leadership Susan. These are very hard questions and dynamics and I appreciate all the hard work and you had to start dealing with them from the start. ____________________________- Timeline of NCSG Engagement: 1. *During the DNS Abuse Small Team deliberations:* When ADC was prioritized, I consulted with NCSG membership. NCSG strongly opposed supporting ADC and we formally withdrew our support. 2. *At the Council meeting (August 14, 2025):* We issued a formal statement withdrawing support: NCSG Statement on DNS Abuse Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ncsg-sta...> 3. *In our public comment:* We reiterated that ADC is concerning and that any PDP must include strong due diligence and remedy mechanisms for domain name registrants if things go wrong. 4. *At the Dublin work session:* We again voiced these concerns multiple times (see interventions below). *At no point did NCSG provide "positive community feedback" on including ADC.* We have been collegial—stating that *if* this work must proceed, it must include transparency, remedy, and due diligence mechanisms. ------------------------------------------------------- This is how our concerns regarding transparency and due diligence was responded to in the Issue Report ● C6 and C7. Due Diligence and Transparency in Mitigation:o Description: The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) provided detailed input on how mitigation should be conducted to ensure fairness and minimize collateral damage. According to the NCSG, before taking action against a domain, the registrar should perform a proportionate investigation and ensure there is specific, actionable evidence of abuse.89 They caution against instant suspensions and suggest to consider if a less drastic measure than suspension could suffice (e.g., maybe temporarily redirect or contact the registrant first if appropriate).90 This NCSG perspective is about codifying a norm of careful assessment, which could possibly be a best practice. As noted in Gap C1, the NCSG suggests that if a domain is suspended or action taken, the registrar should promptly notify the registrant with clear information: the reason, what action was taken, who initiated it (registrar itself, law enforcement request, etc.), and explanation in plain language.91o Potential Solution: These considerations do not necessarily represent a gap in DNS Abuse mitigation since the scope of these is currently unclear due to the lack of data. Without fully understanding the scope of the issue, it's difficult to assess the best mechanism to mitigate the potential harms. Many commenters support best practices on this issue. Other commenters noted this should be a priority policy topic and that there is sufficient data available on the topic. *During the DNS abuse meeting in Dublin:* 1. Withdrawal of Support "And on associated, domain checks, we… NCSG has withdrawn its support for. Not that it's gonna make any difference, but we want to record that we have withdrawn our support on working on associated domain checks *before, the human rights risks are established*, because we believe that there might be a lot of, risk in associated domain checks and how we do it, *it can lead to profiling people and domain name registrants.*" 2. Concerns About the Poll Questions "the questions that you have in Paul [poll], as, as I mentioned, NCSG has, concerns about domain, associated domain checks, and, are concerned, and, the questions here are very concerning. Like, we are… when we are, thinking about them, *we just see that, how this thing can go wrong.*" 3. Request for Human Rights Consideration "I would appreciate if we can also think about all the *implications for the, for the user's rights, for the registrants' rights*, when we are thinking about these mechanisms, like the time frame, or how do you, like, verify it. And, if we could, like, add, one of the questions could be that, *what do you think the, human rights implication or rights implications of, this mechanism is?*" 4. Concerns About Confidentiality vs. Accountability "We have some concerns about, requesting for confidentiality of all the practices, while we, appreciate that there has to be some confidentiality, *it should not prevent, accountability*, of the, like, whatever methods that you use. We need to have some kind of, like, *minimal, transparency as much as possible* while, protecting the method so that it cannot be abused." On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 2:37 PM Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Bruna
Thank you for your email setting out the NCSG views on the draft Motion on DNS Abuse and requesting consideration of a deferral on the vote.
Based on your email, there seem to be two separate concerns: (1) concerns relating to the commencement and timing of the PDPs, including the use of two separate PDPs rather than a single, phased PDP, and (2) concerns relating to the draft charter, including the WG model/structure.
Decision on the PDPs: I appreciate you sharing the NCSG’s views. As you know, the proposal to prioritise Associated Domains Checks (ADC) and API friction as initial topics for policy work came from the Council DNS Abuse small team, and was supported in the preliminary and final Issues Reports, with positive community feedback. The final Issues Report recommendation to structure this as two separate PDPs, with ADC being the first, comes as a result of the community feedback during the public comment process and the session in Dublin. This recommendation was shared by staff with Council at our last meeting in November, and Council did have the opportunity to discuss this. Councillors were also asked to socialise this with their SG/Cs immediately, following the November meeting. This is not something which is being rushed, therefore, but has been discussed and consulted on for some months now.
Given the history, discussion and consultation over many months, and the clear expectations of the wider community, I do not believe it is appropriate to defer our vote on the decision to commence these two PDPs, subject to the finalisation of their respective charters. It is important that the community knows that we have heard them. The draft Motion envisages that PDP1 will commence first, once the charter is finalised, with PDP2 following later.
Charter: I hear your concern that there should be more time to deliberate on the PDP charters, questions and working group model. I’m also aware that some other SG/Cs may also wish to discuss this, particularly the working group model, which is presently proposed to be a representative + open model, rather than the representative model discussed during our last Council meeting. Given the importance of this work to the wider community, and the expectations which have been shared very clearly with us prior to and during the public comment on the draft Issues Report, and at the dedicated session at ICANN 85, I am extremely reluctant to delay, but do agree that it is appropriate to allow for a short period of time to discuss and finalise the draft charter for PDP1, before it is brought back to Council to approve at our next meeting. I would ask that volunteers who wish to work on this identify themselves on our mailing list or on tomorrow’s call, and make themselves available for a short, targeted effort over the next couple of weeks – we will vote on this in January.
The Motion will therefore need to be amended accordingly and will be shared shortly.
I hope that with the deferral of approval of the charter text, and the corresponding amendment of the Motion, your main concern has been met.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*Follow us on** LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> **and** YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>*
*From:* Bruna Martins dos Santos via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 08 December 2025 14:38 *To:* Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Friendly amendment to the Motion - DNS Abuse Mitigation - PDP 1 and PDP 2
Dear Council,
In light of this week's meeting and motion regarding the DNS Abuse PDP, I would like to share the following position from the NCSG:
*NCSG Position on the DNS Abuse PDPs*
*The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) acknowledges the importance of ICANN’s DNS Abuse mitigation efforts? and recognizes the Council's extensive discussions, public comments, and ongoing efforts in this area. However, the NCSG has significant concerns regarding the motions submitted to the Council list.*
*The NCSG acknowledges the motion's sequential framing; the practical effect remains two separate PDPs rather than a truly integrated phased workstream. We therefore do not support establishing two separate PDPs as proposed in the motion. Given the NCSG’s limited capacity to engage, having two PDPs at the same time is not feasible. Having one PDP completed in phases would ensure NCSG capacity throughout the overall process. While the motion indicates that PDP 1 will focus on Associated Domain Checks and PDP 2 on API functionality, the language stating that "the GNSO Council will revisit the draft Charter on DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 2 when deemed appropriate based upon the progress and resources needed for PDP 1" does not clearly establish whether these constitute phased workstreams or truly separate PDPs. The NCSG would prefer a phased PDP approach rather than two concurrent or sequential independent processes for these related topics. Moreover, it seems that the final issue report still recommends concurrent PDPs despite our emphasis that they should not be concurrent which makes the process more ambiguous. This incongruity risks causing confusion and requires Council discussion to resolve them.*
*Additionally, NCSG believes the Council should first discuss which specific topics warrant prioritization based on the recommendations in the Final Issue Report, and then provide recommendations of approaches to the PDP regarding timelines and scope. We also believe the PDP participants should decide which topics they should prioritize and provide a rationale for it, with clear timelines. *
*NCSG's most significant concern remains the process itself. There has been insufficient deliberation regarding the charter structure and the working group model to be adopted during the PDP process. In our view, proceeding without this proper discussion risks a rushed process that could result in inadequate review and unsound policy outcomes. The motion presents a draft charter for the Associated Domain Check PDP and for API before the Council has thoroughly discussed and decided upon the representation and working group model to be adopted. And although it's not the first time a draft charter emerges from a final issues report, the GNSO council holds the role of managing PDPs and, therefore, the role of scoping said efforts. Adequate deliberation on these structural questions is essential to ensuring that the Working Group can function effectively and that NCSG can participate meaningfully, as well as a drafting team for finalizing the charter/charters. *
*To conclude, the NCSG does not oppose convening PDPs on the identified topics. However, we caution against prioritizing the Associated Domain Check initiative, as it raises significant concerns regarding registrant privacy and identification risks.*
*The NCSG would appreciate deferring a vote on this motion while ensuring the council thoroughly deliberates on the working group model and representation structure and how to move forward on convening the PDPs and drafting the charters and focusing on issues. ****
In a nutshell, the NCSG will defer a vote on this motion, and we would welcome if more time was allocated during our upcoming meeting to address these issues and the final issues report.
We remain at your disposal in case any doubts arise!
Kind regards,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 4:15 PM Devan Reed via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Damon.
Thank you, your second is noted.
The motions page will be updated shortly.
Kind regards, Devan
*From: *"Ashcraft, Damon via council" <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"Ashcraft, Damon" <dashcraft@swlaw.com> *Date: *Friday, December 5, 2025 at 9:00 AM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Re: Friendly amendment to the Motion - DNS Abuse Mitigation - PDP 1 and PDP 2
All,
Please note that I am seconding this motion.
Thanks, Damon
*J. Damon Ashcraft*
*, P.C.*
********
*O: *
602.382.6389
|
*M: *
602.510.1640
dashcraft@swlaw.com
*SNELL*
*& WILMER*
swlaw.com [us.content.exclaimer.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https*3A*2F*...> | LinkedIn [us.content.exclaimer.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https*3A*2F*...>
One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556
Albuquerque *|* Boise *|* Dallas *|* Denver *|* Las Vegas *|* Los Angeles *|* Los Cabos *|* Orange County *|* Palo Alto *|* Phoenix *|* Portland *|* Reno-Tahoe *|* Salt Lake City *|* San Diego *|* Seattle *|* Tucson *|* Washington, D.C.
This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
*From:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:08 PM *To:* jen@dot.asia; council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Friendly amendment to the Motion - DNS Abuse Mitigation - PDP 1 and PDP 2
*[EXTERNAL] **council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*
------------------------------
Hi Jen,
The motion has been updated on the wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/ZKifBg [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/ZKif...>
GNSO Council, as a reminder this will need a second. Please email the mailing list to do so: council@icann.org
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Policy Team Supporting the GNSO
*From: *jen--- via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"jen@dot.asia" <jen@dot.asia> *Date: *Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 12:33 PM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Friendly amendment to the Motion - DNS Abuse Mitigation - PDP 1 and PDP 2
Thank you Feodora and staff team for making these corrections and also making sure the references in the Charters reflect the language used in the rest of the Final Issue Report.
In light of this, I am suggesting a friendly amendment to the motion I brought to Council to align with this updated corrected language:
https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages/... [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> (original motion)
Specifically in whereas clause 9:
9. Informed by the DNS Abuse Small Team`s recommendations, the Public Comment on the Preliminary Issue Report, the ICANN84 DNS Abuse working sessions, and the clear preference for narrowly scoped Policy Development Processes (PDP), the Final Issue Report recommends separate PDPs on:
· *Associated Domain Checks: *A framework A reactive approach requiring registrars to proactively pivot to investigate domains linked to malicious actors, particularly in cases of high-volume domain registrations used for DNS Abuse campaigns; and,
· *Safeguards for Application Programming Interface (API) access to new customers: *A proactive approach that seeks to introduce friction for new customer accounts, prior to gaining access to high volume registration tools until trust is established.
I’ve been advised by staff that procedurally I can also accept this amendment as friendly in this same email, and call for a second for the motion. Many thanks to all!
Best,
Jen
*From:* Feodora Hamza via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:20 PM *To:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Final Issue Report on a PDP on DNS Abuse Mitigation
Dear Councilors,
please find below an *updated version/link* to the Final Issue Report on DNS Abuse Mitigation. Updates were made to the Annex A and B on the DNS Abuse Mitigation Charters, which included some minor typographical errors and the details of the Working Group representative structure that have been carried over from the Preliminary Issue Report and included in the Charters of Annex A and Annex B. The lack of inclusion of these was a formatting error and this was remedied.
Finally, the Charter language of the Associated Domain Checks was updated in Annex A on page 48 as follows: *Associated Domain Checks*: A framework A reactive approach requiring registrars to *proactively pivot* to investigate domains linked to malicious actors, particularly in cases of high-volume domain registrations used for DNS Abuse campaigns.
- Please utilize the updated link here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/issue-report-dn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...>
Kind regards,
Feodora on behalf of the Support Team
*From: *Feodora Hamza via council <council@icann.org> *Reply to: *Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, 1 December 2025 at 21:02 *To: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Final Issue Report on a PDP on DNS Abuse Mitigation
Dear GNSO Council,
Please find below the link to the Final Issue Report on a PDP on DNS Abuse Mitigation – updated based on the Public Comment received.
The most notable change compared to the Preliminary Issue Report is the Annex containing two draft charters starting on page 46.
Final Issue Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/issue-report-dn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...>
Kind regards,
*Feodora Hamza*
Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
* Mobile:* +32 496 30 24 15
*Email:* feodora.hamza@icann.org
*Website:* www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *
Policy and Advocacy Manager | WITNESS <https://www.witness.org/>
German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype: bruna.martinsantos
Email: bruna.mrtns@gmail.com ------------------------------ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
