CORRECTION! My last email used the WRONG word in the RrSG response. Please note that our response was intended to say that the PDPs should be run CONSECUTIVELY (not
concurrently).
I blame spell check, too much eating of mashed potatoes, or generally a fried brain ready for the holidays. HUGE error. Apologies for any confusion and raised eyebrows. Phew.
Apologies to all for the delay in RrSG feedback on the DNS abuse PDP topics. I hope this input still proves useful:
Membership model: There are some RrSG members who have concerns with there being sufficient diversity of expertise on registrar systems that will be necessary for developing policy on DNS Abuse that primarily impacts registrars. RrSG is advocating for a representative
rather than open model, but representative in any PDP should mean where a topic both significantly impacts and has the required expertise in one group, they should be allocated additional seat(s). This was the case for registrars in the Transfer PDP, just
as, for example, IPC should get the same consideration in any UDRP PDP. RrSG also supports there being Observers in both DNS Abuse PDPs.
Charter Questions: as the RySG have said, our comment would depend on the Final Report.
Timing: the RrSG believes there needs to be two separate PDPs that should be run concurrently and not in parallel, but the second could start as soon as the WG has finished with the Final Report (no need to wait for other final proceedings).
Thanks (and now I'll go read the final report 🙂)
Ashley
From: jen--- via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:43 PM
To: 'Ashcraft, Damon' <dashcraft@swlaw.com>
Cc: 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published
Many thanks Damon for presenting the feedback from the IPC, this will be useful for us going into the discussion when the Final Issue Report is published Dec 1. Best, Jen From: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@ swlaw. com> Sent: Wednesday, November
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Many thanks Damon for presenting the feedback from the IPC, this will be useful for us going into the discussion when the Final Issue Report is published Dec 1.
Best,
Jen
From: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 1:15 PM
To: jen@dot.asia
Cc: 'Susan Payne' <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; 'Terri Agnew' <terri.agnew@icann.org>; 'Hamza Feodora' <feodora.hamza@icann.org>; 'John Emery' <john.emery@icann.org>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published
Dear Jen,
Thank you for your soliciting the IPC’s feedback on the PDP’s for DNS Abuse and for your gracious extension of time to respond. The general consensus opinion from the IPC on the questions
below is presented in red below.
- The membership model as to whether it should be representative, open, or a weighted model by impacted parties. It was also raised, that
since there will be two PDPs on this topic, the model does not necessarily have to be the same. The IPC favors a representative model. This model will allow for the most efficient feedback which is critical
for these PDPs to stay on track and get done timely. The IPC also favors full transparency in the representative model including open and recorded calls, and the ability for WG Observers to join calls in real time (listen-only), which would assist newcomers
to gain experience of how a PDP WG operates and would also make it easier for Observers to provide input to their WG representatives, thus allaying some of the concerns some may have over a representative model and/or the number of seats at the table. The
representative model should also allow for alternates, who should be encouraged to join all calls but would only actively-participate where the representative is unavailable.
- The Charter questions and their scope.
No comments at this time.
- The timeframe and the overlap of the two PDPs.
The IPC supports the currently timeframe of the PDPs but reiterates that the PDPs should be efficient and completed within the timeframe. The IPC does not object to any overlap of the PDPs provided they
do not extend the overall timeframe. Arguments raised against conducting this effort as a single PDP included that a single PDP would take longer, that there will not necessarily be the same participants or WG structure for the two identified issues, and
that it would “fail the aspiration of a narrowly scoped PDP.” These arguments would support conducting the PDPs as near to in-parallel
as possible, and so, at a minimum with a significant overlap. Not doing so would also
“fail the aspiration of a narrowly scoped PDP,”
which is intended to achieve meaningful progress quickly and efficiently.
Thanks,
Damon
|
J. Damon Ashcraft
|
, P.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: jen--- via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:32 PM
To: council@icann.org
Subject: [council] Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published
[EXTERNAL]
council@icann.org
Dear Councilors,
As noted in the action items for Item 5 on DNS Abuse from the 13 November GNSO Council meeting, we have the following tasks:
Action Items:
- Councilors to get input based on the
presentation materials from respective groups to engage in conversation on the list prior to the next Council meeting.
-
Councilors to review Public Comment summary report when it is published on 17 November.
-
Councilors to review the Final Issue Report with their respective groups when it is issued in early December in preparation for a vote to initiate a PDP at the December Council meeting.
I am writing today to inform you that the
Public Comment Summary Report was published yesterday and is available here for your review and discussion with your groups:
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-on-a-policy-development-process-on-dns-abuse-mitigation-08-09-2025
Based on the discussion during the Council meeting, topics that arose:
- The membership model as to whether it should be representative, open, or a weighted model by impacted parties. It was also raised,
that since there will be two PDPs on this topic, the model does not necessarily have to be the same.
- The Charter questions and their scope
- The timeframe and the overlap of the two PDPs
Please continue to engage in conversations on these topics on list, bring feedback from your respective SG/Cs
before Tuesday 25 November, as staff prepares the Final Issue Report to be forthcoming 1 December.
Best,
Jen