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. ________________________________ From: Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 3:49 PM To: 'Ashcraft, Damon' <dashcraft@swlaw.com>; jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia> Cc: 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published 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. ​​​​ O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL ​& WILMER swlaw.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https*3A*2F...> | LinkedIn<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: jen--- via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:32 PM To: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published [EXTERNAL] council@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic...> 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-on-a-policy-development-process-on-dns-abuse-mitigation-08-09-2025__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!sLqB4gvoIKM2yE85qjNrQ35blALigtH7Ir1zaaPLvWgNO3FSC2Vs_Y6_ntP_CXn2HwYuPrj8TMJwyWTy$> 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

Thanks Justine. I think voting Council members should consider carefully the effect of the Representative Model on the Consensus Call in policy development processes. I can appreciate that contracted parties business operations are most directly affected by the upcoming PDPs on DNS Abuse, but it does seem to me that the entire community as well as all users and consumers are, in the end, equally affected by the policy outcomes, if not operationally, certainly from a consumer trust and confidence point of view. There is always a balancing that must occur between business interests and consumer interests. So I guess the Public Interest Framework will apply to these PDPs for that purpose but it is important to know in what way and what effect it might have on Consensus Call. Thank you. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:59 AM Justine Chew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Ashely and Damon, for sharing your groups' input.

I noted mention of Representative Model, alternates, and observers, and - while the ALAC prefers a Rep+Open Model to facilitate "openness" in GNSO policy development processes - I hope that staff preparing the charter for the first PDP will be able to clarify what roles alternates and observers can play during a PDP meeting/call (i.e. an understanding of what each can or cannot do, whether in the presence of the representative(s) or otherwise). The ALAC would appreciate clarity on this for their consideration.

Kind regards, Justine

On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 at 05:21, aheineman--- via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

...

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. ------------------------------ *From:* Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com> *Sent:* Monday, December 1, 2025 3:49 PM *To:* 'Ashcraft, Damon' <dashcraft@swlaw.com>; jen@dot.asia <jen@dot.asia

...

*Cc:* 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Important Updates: DNS Abuse PDP - Public Comment Summary Report published

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.*

*​**​**​**​*

*O: *

602.382.6389

|

*M: *

602.510.1640

dashcraft@swlaw.com

*SNELL*

*​& WILMER*

swlaw.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https*3A*2F...> | LinkedIn <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:* 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 <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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic...> 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-... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceedi...>

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

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.