- Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Vice Chair eBallot Due 27 March 23:59 UTC
by John Emery March 26, 2026

March 26, 2026

Dear DNSAM PDP WG, As you are aware, we are in the midst of Vice-Chair elections for this PDP. At the time of this email, just above half of eligible voters have voted. As a reminder, the election will close 27 March 2026 at 23:59 UTC. Recall from Monday's meeting that only Members and Participant were eligible to vote. If you did not receive your ballot from the eBallot platform, please follow these instructions: 1. Check you spam folder to see if the ballot sent to you may have been caught there. The ballot will be delivered from votenet.com<http://votenet.com>. 2. If you do not see the ballot in your inbox or spam folder, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and staff will resolve the issue by contacting you directly. Please do not submit your delivery issue to the PDP mailing list. All the best, GNSO Policy Development Support Team John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Re: Action Item: Review Workplan by 30March
by Nitin Walia March 26, 2026

March 26, 2026

Dear Feodora, Thank you for the update and for enabling access. I will review the document and share my inputs directly in the sheet . Appreciate the flexibility to also contribute via email . Warm RegardsNitin WaliaDirectorData Ingenious Globalnitin(a)data.in | नितिन(a)xn--c2bd1gb.xn--h2brj9c www.data.in--------------------------------------------------------------The content of this email is confidential and intended only for the recipient specified.If you received this message in error, please delete it and inform the sender . From: Feodora Hamza MailId : [153939835]To: Nitin Walia Subject: Re: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Action Item: Review Workplan by 30MarchDate: 26 Mar 2026 03:18:57 PM Hi Nitin, thank you very much for pointing this out. The access rights to the document have been updated and now you can provide your input directly into the file: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDXM13Io8RJlYZVj0rhbfoMi7und3v9i/ed… [docs.google.com] However, WG members are also always welcome to provide input via Email. Whichever approach is easier for you. Thank you again. Kind regards, Feodora From: Nitin Walia via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp Reply to: Nitin Walia Date: Thursday, 26 March 2026 at 10:14 To: feodora hamza via gnso-dnsabuse-pdp Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Action Item: Review Workplan by 30March Dear Feodora, Thank you for forwarding the email from Paul McGrady regarding the PDP work plan and timeline. I appreciate the clarity provided on the proposed approach, milestones, and workflow . I just had a small clarification regarding the submission of inputs by 30 March. Should we be sharing our feedback on the mailing list, or is it preferred to add comments directly in the WG Inputs tab of the shared Google sheet document? I understand that the WG Inputs tab in the sheet may currently allow inputs only in comment mode from my end, so I wanted to confirm the preferred approach . Warm Regards Nitin Walia Director Data Ingenious Global nitin(a)data.in | नितिन(a)xn--c2bd1gb.xn--h2brj9c www.data.in [data.in]-------------------------------------------------------------- The content of this email is confidential and intended only for the recipient specified. If you received this message in error, please delete it and inform the sender . From: Feodora Hamza via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp MailId : [153929934] To: "gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Action Item: Review Workplan by 30March Date: 25 Mar 2026 07:31:18 PM Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady Dear DNSAM PDP1 members, During the recent ICANN85 session and our last call on 23 March, we briefly reviewed the proposed approach for progressing the PDP work and the draft timeline that staff shared with the group. I would like to recap the key points from that discussion and invite your feedback . Staff also presented a draft work plan and timeline for the PDP. The Milestones of the proposed plan include: Initial Report to be published in Feb 2027 and Final Report to go to Council in September 2027 . A workflow that pairs discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings . Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question . Iterative impact analysis during the drafting process rather than waiting until the end of the PDP . A final review phase before preparation of the Initial Report . Members within the WG and beyond noted during ICANN85 that the timeline may appear lengthy. However, when assessing the timeline it is important to keep in mind that certain procedural timelines are established by the ICANN Bylaws and cannot be shortened. In addition, the days referenced in the work plan represent calendar days, not meeting days. For example, a 10-day period effectively corresponds to roughly two Working Group meetings, which shows the importance of asynchronous review and drafting work between calls if the group aims to accelerate progress . That said, it is for the Working Group to collectively decide on a timeline.. Please review the detailed work plan and let us know where the group believes the timeline could reasonably be shortened. We will collect feedback and discuss potential adjustments during the next Working Group call. Please provide your input by 30 March. Leadership will then look into the feedback provided and adjust the timeline where appropriate . Please see here the workplan document including 3 tabs: One Tab with the draft workplan One Tab with standard PDP timelines as required by the bylaws One Tab for the WG to provide comments regarding the workplan Link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDXM13Io8RJlYZVj0rhbfoMi7und3v… [docs.google.com] It is important to note that project plans and timelines are designed as the maximum expected duration of the PDP. From a project management perspective, it is generally preferable to plan conservatively and deliver earlier where possible, rather than risk delays. Any need to extend the timeline would require approval from the GNSO Council . However, we would like to highlight a few areas where the timeline could potentially be shortened, subject to Working Group agreement: Post&ndashInitial Report Public Comment phase: The time allocated between the close of public comment and preparation of the Final Report could potentially be reduced. However, this will depend on the volume and complexity of comments received. Given the high level of interest in this topic, extensions to the public comment period or additional analysis time may still be required. Charter Question sequencing: While the work plan assumes that charter questions are addressed sequentially, initial WG discussions and draft language suggest that deliberations may overlap across questions. Identifying and leveraging these overlaps may create efficiencies and allow certain elements of the work to progress in parallel . We therefore encourage the Working Group to carefully review the detailed work plan and consider where realistic efficiencies can be achieved. Thank you again for your engagement and contributions to the PDP. We look forward to continuing the discussion on the upcoming call . Best regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave(a)icann.org Do not Remove: [HID]2026032519311822[-HID] [XGENFOOTER] [-XGENFOOTER]

1 0

Vice Chair DND Abuse Mitigation committee
by anil Jain March 26, 2026

March 26, 2026

Hi, I am Anil Kumar Jain, Participant in DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP I , representing ISPCP Constituency. I am seeking your support for the post of Vice Chair Position in DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP I. 1. I have already lead/ represented three PDPs, hence sufficient experience in leading PDP. 2. I was chair of UASG(23-25), Chair Cummunication WG of UASG(22-25), Vice Chair IDN ccTLD PDP WG4, Vice Chair of IGLC of ccTLD, hence held several leadership positions in ICANN. 3. I was chair of India IGF, chair India DNS Abuse Mitigation Committee, chair UA Day committee (2023). We shall work together to ensure meeting all objectives of Charter well within time , decisions by consensus, ensuring a document which can lead other efforts in same direction. Thanks, Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Re: Action Item: Review Workplan by 30March
by Nitin Walia March 26, 2026

March 26, 2026

Dear Feodora, Thank you for forwarding the email from Paul McGrady regarding the PDP work plan and timeline. I appreciate the clarity provided on the proposed approach, milestones, and workflow . I just had a small clarification regarding the submission of inputs by 30 March. Should we be sharing our feedback on the mailing list, or is it preferred to add comments directly in the WG Inputs tab of the shared Google sheet document? I understand that the WG Inputs tab in the sheet may currently allow inputs only in comment mode from my end, so I wanted to confirm the preferred approach . Warm RegardsNitin WaliaDirectorData Ingenious Globalnitin(a)data.in | नितिन(a)xn--c2bd1gb.xn--h2brj9c www.data.in--------------------------------------------------------------The content of this email is confidential and intended only for the recipient specified.If you received this message in error, please delete it and inform the sender . From: Feodora Hamza via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp MailId : [153929934]To: "gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Action Item: Review Workplan by 30MarchDate: 25 Mar 2026 07:31:18 PM Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady Dear DNSAM PDP1 members, During the recent ICANN85 session and our last call on 23 March, we briefly reviewed the proposed approach for progressing the PDP work and the draft timeline that staff shared with the group. I would like to recap the key points from that discussion and invite your feedback . Staff also presented a draft work plan and timeline for the PDP. The Milestones of the proposed plan include: Initial Report to be published in Feb 2027 and Final Report to go to Council in September 2027 . A workflow that pairs discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings . Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question . Iterative impact analysis during the drafting process rather than waiting until the end of the PDP . A final review phase before preparation of the Initial Report . Members within the WG and beyond noted during ICANN85 that the timeline may appear lengthy. However, when assessing the timeline it is important to keep in mind that certain procedural timelines are established by the ICANN Bylaws and cannot be shortened. In addition, the days referenced in the work plan represent calendar days, not meeting days. For example, a 10-day period effectively corresponds to roughly two Working Group meetings, which shows the importance of asynchronous review and drafting work between calls if the group aims to accelerate progress . That said, it is for the Working Group to collectively decide on a timeline.. Please review the detailed work plan and let us know where the group believes the timeline could reasonably be shortened. We will collect feedback and discuss potential adjustments during the next Working Group call. Please provide your input by 30 March. Leadership will then look into the feedback provided and adjust the timeline where appropriate . Please see here the workplan document including 3 tabs: One Tab with the draft workplan One Tab with standard PDP timelines as required by the bylaws One Tab for the WG to provide comments regarding the workplan Link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDXM13Io8RJlYZVj0rhbfoMi7und3v… It is important to note that project plans and timelines are designed as the maximum expected duration of the PDP. From a project management perspective, it is generally preferable to plan conservatively and deliver earlier where possible, rather than risk delays. Any need to extend the timeline would require approval from the GNSO Council . However, we would like to highlight a few areas where the timeline could potentially be shortened, subject to Working Group agreement: Post&ndashInitial Report Public Comment phase: The time allocated between the close of public comment and preparation of the Final Report could potentially be reduced. However, this will depend on the volume and complexity of comments received. Given the high level of interest in this topic, extensions to the public comment period or additional analysis time may still be required. Charter Question sequencing: While the work plan assumes that charter questions are addressed sequentially, initial WG discussions and draft language suggest that deliberations may overlap across questions. Identifying and leveraging these overlaps may create efficiencies and allow certain elements of the work to progress in parallel . We therefore encourage the Working Group to carefully review the detailed work plan and consider where realistic efficiencies can be achieved. Thank you again for your engagement and contributions to the PDP. We look forward to continuing the discussion on the upcoming call . Best regards, Paul _______________________________________________Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave(a)icann.orgDo not Remove:[HID]2026032519311822[-HID] [XGENFOOTER] [-XGENFOOTER]

1 0

Action Item: Review Workplan by 30March
by Feodora Hamza March 25, 2026

March 25, 2026

Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady Dear DNSAM PDP1 members, During the recent ICANN85 session and our last call on 23 March, we briefly reviewed the proposed approach for progressing the PDP work and the draft timeline that staff shared with the group. I would like to recap the key points from that discussion and invite your feedback. Staff also presented a draft work plan and timeline for the PDP. The Milestones of the proposed plan include: * Initial Report to be published in Feb 2027 and Final Report to go to Council in September 2027. * A workflow that pairs discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings. * Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question. * Iterative impact analysis during the drafting process rather than waiting until the end of the PDP. * A final review phase before preparation of the Initial Report. Members within the WG and beyond noted during ICANN85 that the timeline may appear lengthy. However, when assessing the timeline it is important to keep in mind that certain procedural timelines are established by the ICANN Bylaws and cannot be shortened. In addition, the days referenced in the work plan represent calendar days, not meeting days. For example, a 10-day period effectively corresponds to roughly two Working Group meetings, which shows the importance of asynchronous review and drafting work between calls if the group aims to accelerate progress. That said, it is for the Working Group to collectively decide on a timeline. Please review the detailed work plan and let us know where the group believes the timeline could reasonably be shortened. We will collect feedback and discuss potential adjustments during the next Working Group call. Please provide your input by 30 March. Leadership will then look into the feedback provided and adjust the timeline where appropriate. Please see here the workplan document including 3 tabs: * One Tab with the draft workplan * One Tab with standard PDP timelines as required by the bylaws * One Tab for the WG to provide comments regarding the workplan * Link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDXM13Io8RJlYZVj0rhbfoMi7und3v… It is important to note that project plans and timelines are designed as the maximum expected duration of the PDP. From a project management perspective, it is generally preferable to plan conservatively and deliver earlier where possible, rather than risk delays. Any need to extend the timeline would require approval from the GNSO Council. However, we would like to highlight a few areas where the timeline could potentially be shortened, subject to Working Group agreement: * Post–Initial Report Public Comment phase: The time allocated between the close of public comment and preparation of the Final Report could potentially be reduced. However, this will depend on the volume and complexity of comments received. Given the high level of interest in this topic, extensions to the public comment period or additional analysis time may still be required. * Charter Question sequencing: While the work plan assumes that charter questions are addressed sequentially, initial WG discussions and draft language suggest that deliberations may overlap across questions. Identifying and leveraging these overlaps may create efficiencies and allow certain elements of the work to progress in parallel. We therefore encourage the Working Group to carefully review the detailed work plan and consider where realistic efficiencies can be achieved. Thank you again for your engagement and contributions to the PDP. We look forward to continuing the discussion on the upcoming call. Best regards, Paul

1 0

Kind reminder: Follow-up: WG Collaboration Document
by Feodora Hamza March 25, 2026

March 25, 2026

Dear all, a kind reminder on the Action Item below: 5. Collaboration document for the WG to contribute, provide feedback, and change as the WG sees fit. · Based on the discussions to date and the language provided by Working Group members, leadership and staff have developed a working document to capture discussions and draft language for each charter question. · This document is intended to support clear navigation, transparency, and effective asynchronous work, allowing members to review, comment, and refine proposals between meetings in a structured way. · Each charter question is listed and 3 different coloured boxes are provided for each. · First (orange), the key takeaways from the previous discussion · Second box (green), the draft language provided by the WG and some overarching themes that can be derived from that language · Third (blue), a box for when the WG is ready to stabilise the language for their recommendation on each Charter Question. · Link:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQ… Kind regards, Feodora Feodora Hamza Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +32 496 30 24 15 Email: feodora.hamza(a)icann.org<mailto:feodora.hamza@icann.org> Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 23 March 2026 at 15:47 To: "gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org> Subject: Follow-up: WG Collaboration Document Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady Dear DNSAM PDP1 WG members, thank you for today’s call. As briefly noted before the meeting ended, I would like to take a moment to outline the plan for how the Working Group will approach its deliberations and methodology moving forward. We alluded to this during ICANN85 but it is always good to recap and make sure all members are on the same page. Firstly, it is encouraging to see the level of ambition within the group and the clear willingness to collaborate and develop workable solutions. This is the spirit of volunteerism that I love so much about our community. At the same time, our early discussions have demonstrated that reaching consensus will take time and due consideration, given the range of perspectives, needs, and considerations that proposed recommendations must undergo. There is no “silver bullet” but we do have good tools to accomplish our work in a timely, thorough fashion. 1. Staying within scope: As a reminder, the charter defines the scope of this PDP (the nature of our universe), and it is essential that our discussions remain within those boundaries. Where ideas arise that fall outside of scope, these can certainly be captured for future consideration by Council but should not slow down or divert our current work. I know it would be great to solve every problem all at once, but that is not what Council asked us to do. 2. Focus on recommendations: At this stage and as noted during our ICANN85 session 2 on Consensus Building, the Working Group should prioritize identifying needs and developing policy recommendations, rather than jumping directly to specific implementation/policy language solutions. This will help ensure that our outputs remain policy-focused and aligned with the role of the PDP. However, I do appreciate the specific language provided so far as it helps to inform where recommendations can go and can give us something concrete to haggle over. So, don’t be shy but understand we won’t be recommending specific contract language, just high level Policy. 3. Consensus building throughout the process: As highlighted in our consensus-building discussions, we should ensure that all SGs/Cs and community stakeholders understand not only what the Working Group is proposing, but also why. Drawing on lessons learned and best practices (including those captured in the consensus building playbook and ICANN85 session2), clear rationale and transparency in our recommendations will be key to achieving broad support and avoiding delays later in the process. 4. Iterative and collaborative workflow To support efficient progress, we will follow an iterative workflow, which includes: · Pairing focused discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings; · Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question; · Conducting periodic impact checks during the drafting process, rather than deferring all impact analysis to the end of the PDP. 1. Collaboration document for the WG to contribute, provide feedback, and change as the WG sees fit. · Based on the discussions to date and the language provided by Working Group members, leadership and staff have developed a working document to capture discussions and draft language for each charter question. · This document is intended to support clear navigation, transparency, and effective asynchronous work, allowing members to review, comment, and refine proposals between meetings in a structured way. · Each charter question is listed and 3 different coloured boxes are provided for each. · First (orange), the key takeaways from the previous discussion · Second box (green), the draft language provided by the WG and some overarching themes that can be derived from that language · Third (blue), a box for when the WG is ready to stabilise the language for their recommendation on each Charter Question. · Link:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQ… Please take a look and provide your feedback within the document by the means of commenting on the document rather than making direct edits to the text. Staff will help us capture the comments and we can wordsmith the draft recommendations together as we iterate. . Thank you all for your continued contributions and great, positive energy that you are bringing to the conversation.Talk soon! Best, Paul

1 0

Re: [Ext] RE: Vice Chair Election Instructions (eBallot to be sent individually)
by John Emery March 24, 2026

March 24, 2026

Hello Marc and WG Members, As requested, the following is a compilation of the WG emails of each self-nomination for the role of Vice Chair. Those present at the first meeting in Mumbai were given a chance to speak as well for their candidacy and the timestamp of their statement can be found next to each name from the ICANN85 zoom recording linked in the google doc. As a disclaimer, this is solely a compilation of the emails sent to the list and the timestamp of speeches given at ICANN85 by the candidates compiled by staff. This is not a formal document of each candidate’s statement. The five Vice Chair candidates are listed in alphabetical order: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zEV1K-eG15pjSHPNj6oDK2mqSktrF-Bf_HlxA_2… John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 07:49 To: John Emery <john.emery(a)icann.org>, "gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Vice Chair Election Instructions (eBallot to be sent individually) Do we want to give the candidates an opportunity to provide a brief written overview to staff which they can consolidate into a single document that the representative can share with their constituencies? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP Aspen Chicago 411 E. Main Street 360 North Green Street Suite 207 | Aspen, CO 81611 Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1.970.300.5313 T +1.312.456.1020 M +1.773.677.3305 M +1.773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.gtlaw.com/__;!!PtGJab4!5IILrBTH_qlvfl…> | View GT Biography [gtlaw.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachte…> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: John Emery via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 8:07 AM To: gnso-dnsabuse-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Vice Chair Election Instructions (eBallot to be sent individually) *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear DNSAM PDP 1 WG, The time has come to elect the Vice Chair for this PDP. There are currently five candidates for Vice Chair: * Ching Chiao * Farell Folly * Anil Kumar Jain * Christabel Mebaghandu * Nick Wenban-Smith Once the Vice Chair is selected from the WG membership, their appointing organization may appoint a new member as a replacement. The process of voting will be a Ranked Choice vote, where every member of the PDP WG: Members and Participants (not Alternates) will have the opportunity to vote. You will vote by ranking all 5 candidates in order of preference. You must rank each candidate 1 through 5. If there is one candidate that receives a majority (>50%) in the first round of voting, they will be selected as Vice Chair. If the first round does not produce a majority in favor of a single candidate, then a second round of a vote will be taken of the top two candidates only. Each Member and Participant will cast a single vote for one of the two remaining candidates. You will be emailed an individual eBallot form for your voting. Please complete the form by Friday 27 March 23:59 UTC. John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.icann.org__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HkhQLhSjg9Ew…> ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

5 4

Straw Proposal
by Reg Levy March 23, 2026

March 23, 2026

All— As noted in the chat in the session today, this is the straw proposal a number of us have been working on for the last few days and we’d love additional input: When a registrar takes action under Section 3.18 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the registrar shall promptly review other domains that are reasonably associated with that domain when there are clear indicators that other domains registered by the same customer may be involved in the same abusive activity, using information reasonably available to the registrar at the time of review, and take action against those domains where appropriate. Servus, Reg -- Reg Levy | Associate General Counsel – Domains +1 (323) 880-0831 Tucows #MakingTheInternetBetter UTC +5:30

13 33

Vice Chair Election Instructions (eBallot to be sent individually)
by John Emery March 23, 2026

March 23, 2026

Dear DNSAM PDP 1 WG, The time has come to elect the Vice Chair for this PDP. There are currently five candidates for Vice Chair: * Ching Chiao * Farell Folly * Anil Kumar Jain * Christabel Mebaghandu * Nick Wenban-Smith Once the Vice Chair is selected from the WG membership, their appointing organization may appoint a new member as a replacement. The process of voting will be a Ranked Choice vote, where every member of the PDP WG: Members and Participants (not Alternates) will have the opportunity to vote. You will vote by ranking all 5 candidates in order of preference. You must rank each candidate 1 through 5. If there is one candidate that receives a majority (>50%) in the first round of voting, they will be selected as Vice Chair. If the first round does not produce a majority in favor of a single candidate, then a second round of a vote will be taken of the top two candidates only. Each Member and Participant will cast a single vote for one of the two remaining candidates. You will be emailed an individual eBallot form for your voting. Please complete the form by Friday 27 March 23:59 UTC. John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

2 1

Follow-up: WG Collaboration Document
by Feodora Hamza March 23, 2026

March 23, 2026

Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady Dear DNSAM PDP1 WG members, thank you for today’s call. As briefly noted before the meeting ended, I would like to take a moment to outline the plan for how the Working Group will approach its deliberations and methodology moving forward. We alluded to this during ICANN85 but it is always good to recap and make sure all members are on the same page. Firstly, it is encouraging to see the level of ambition within the group and the clear willingness to collaborate and develop workable solutions. This is the spirit of volunteerism that I love so much about our community. At the same time, our early discussions have demonstrated that reaching consensus will take time and due consideration, given the range of perspectives, needs, and considerations that proposed recommendations must undergo. There is no “silver bullet” but we do have good tools to accomplish our work in a timely, thorough fashion. 1. Staying within scope: As a reminder, the charter defines the scope of this PDP (the nature of our universe), and it is essential that our discussions remain within those boundaries. Where ideas arise that fall outside of scope, these can certainly be captured for future consideration by Council but should not slow down or divert our current work. I know it would be great to solve every problem all at once, but that is not what Council asked us to do. 2. Focus on recommendations: At this stage and as noted during our ICANN85 session 2 on Consensus Building, the Working Group should prioritize identifying needs and developing policy recommendations, rather than jumping directly to specific implementation/policy language solutions. This will help ensure that our outputs remain policy-focused and aligned with the role of the PDP. However, I do appreciate the specific language provided so far as it helps to inform where recommendations can go and can give us something concrete to haggle over. So, don’t be shy but understand we won’t be recommending specific contract language, just high level Policy. 3. Consensus building throughout the process: As highlighted in our consensus-building discussions, we should ensure that all SGs/Cs and community stakeholders understand not only what the Working Group is proposing, but also why. Drawing on lessons learned and best practices (including those captured in the consensus building playbook and ICANN85 session2), clear rationale and transparency in our recommendations will be key to achieving broad support and avoiding delays later in the process. 4. Iterative and collaborative workflow To support efficient progress, we will follow an iterative workflow, which includes: · Pairing focused discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings; · Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question; · Conducting periodic impact checks during the drafting process, rather than deferring all impact analysis to the end of the PDP. 1. Collaboration document for the WG to contribute, provide feedback, and change as the WG sees fit. · Based on the discussions to date and the language provided by Working Group members, leadership and staff have developed a working document to capture discussions and draft language for each charter question. · This document is intended to support clear navigation, transparency, and effective asynchronous work, allowing members to review, comment, and refine proposals between meetings in a structured way. · Each charter question is listed and 3 different coloured boxes are provided for each. · First (orange), the key takeaways from the previous discussion · Second box (green), the draft language provided by the WG and some overarching themes that can be derived from that language · Third (blue), a box for when the WG is ready to stabilise the language for their recommendation on each Charter Question. · Link:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQ… Please take a look and provide your feedback within the document by the means of commenting on the document rather than making direct edits to the text. Staff will help us capture the comments and we can wordsmith the draft recommendations together as we iterate. . Thank you all for your continued contributions and great, positive energy that you are bringing to the conversation.Talk soon! Best, Paul

1 0