To also send this to the council list, here is the feedback from the RySG:

Membership Model:

• The group converged around a Representative Model (e.g., representative and alternate) for both PDPs to foster efficiency. 
• To address the call for openness and for opportunities to participate, the PDP WG Charter should allow for Observers. The Charter should also encourage creative ways to allow for input from the entire Community. E.g. Calls for input, open mic sessions, calls for Subject Matter Expert input, etc.
• Regarding the representation model, the group is of the opinion that the make up of the PDP WG must be balanced.

Charter Questions:

• The group reserves its opinion until the Final Issue Report is published.

Timeframe and the overlap:

• The group reinforces the RySG comment to the Preliminary Issue Report, which indicated a strong preference to two distinct PDP, deployed in sequence. The GNSO Council and ICANN Staff are encouraged to find opportunities for efficiency.

Wishing US colleagues and those who celebrate a Happy Thanksgiving.

Best,

Jen

From: jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:44 PM
To: 'Ashcraft, Damon' <dashcraft@swlaw.com>
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

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.

O:	602.382.6389

 | 

M:	602.510.1640

dashcraft@swlaw.com

SNELL

& WILMER

swlaw.com | LinkedIn

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: 

1. 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.
2. Councilors to review Public Comment summary report when it is published on 17 November.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. The Charter questions and their scope
3. 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