Dear DNSAM PDP1,

Please see below the high-level notes and action item from today’s discussion. 

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 1 June at 12:30 UTC.

As discussed, please find below the Prelim Rec Review Document, which has been updated to reflect today’s discussion, the input provided in the collaboration document, and previous working group discussions, for your review by 8 June 2026.

• Prelim Rec ReviewDoc:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true

Please note our apologies that the review document was not available in advance of today’s meeting. To accurately reflect the working group’s discussions, we needed the benefit of today’s deliberations before finalizing the draft. As noted by the Chair during the meeting, this is not intended to represent final language. Rather, it is a working draft for the Working Group to continue to review, edit, discuss, and refine with the aim of developing language that:


a) Can reach Working Group consensus.


b) Can receive support from the GNSO Council.


c) Can be approved by the ICANN Board.


d) Can be implemented by ICANN Org.

Kind regards,

Feodora on behalf of Support Staff

2026-05-26 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG

Action Items:

• Support Staff to update and circulate the Review Doc on preliminary recommendation following the meeting discussion and consideration of all input received to date. 

Including: 

To refine language around minimum indicators.

To refine language concerning “all means within its control.”

To better align/harmonize Recommendations 2 to 4.

Add prelim rec for CQ 5 and 6 based on today's and previous discussion 

• Working group members to review language and provide substantive comments with proposed alternatives by 8 JUNE 2026.
• Staff to share Draft Scoped Impact Assessment with WG for their review by Thursday 4 June. 

Important documents/links:

• Session Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/_eLWI9LJE1KYofmW2peKWStBqsRTo2LzGk13b1dexMMXHcZBR-b5gT5PCn72R1zprN1nhLA_jxPjPqLM.1uOegLp8Kybn4I8O
• Wiki space/slides: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935755817/2026-05-26+DNS+Abuse+Mitigation+PDP1+WG
• CollabDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pLqNE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ijsrxl4pcszz
• NEW Prelim Rec ReviewDoc:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true

High-level Notes: 

1. Welcome (5min)
2. PDP Updates (10min)

• The Chair reviewed overall PDP progress and upcoming milestones.

• Support Staff introduced the Prelim Rec Review Doc (as part of CQ7 discussion) that will contain preliminary recommendation language, rationale, and implementation guidance for discussed charter questions and based on today’s discussion.

• Support Staff noted that:

• The collaboration document remained active and was not being retired. There are still CQs to be discussed.
• WG Members are asked to review and provide comments on language they “cannot live with,” provide rationale, and propose alternative language.

• WG members noted the phrase “cannot live with,” arguing that it implies a willingness to reject policy entirely rather than compromise. They cautioned against escalating positions prematurely.

• The Chair clarified that the purpose of the exercise was to surface major objections early enough for resolution before consensus stages.

• Chair noted important considerations from the Advisory: Compliance With DNS Abuse Obligations in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement. The focus was on “what makes an action prompt”. The advisory includes 2 scenarios for further illustration and clarification. 

3. Flash Review of Prelim Recs from CQ1-CQ4 (30min)

• The WG reviewed language requiring registrars (Prelim Rec 1) to perform ADCs when actionable evidence points to DNS abuse.

• Key discussion points included:

· Removal of earlier language attempting to define “malicious domains.”

· Explicit exclusion of compromised domains from ADC requirements.

· Clarification that ADC requirements define minimum obligations rather than the full universe of permissible registrar actions.

· WG members inquired about whether past DNS Abuse should trigger ADC obligations. 

· Other members noted against extending requirements into speculative or predictive enforcement.

· WG discussed prelim Rec on “association criteria”. The draft proposed that registrars review at least one account-related or technical indicator reasonably accessible to them.

· Key discussion points included:

· Whether requiring “at least one” indicator effectively creates a one-indicator minimum standard. 

· WG members asked whether one indicator would become the de facto ceiling rather than floor and how registrars could know in advance which indicators would be most useful.

· The balance between flexibility and sufficient investigative steps.

· Language requiring indicators “most likely to yield useful and actionable information.”

· WG members noted that some language was becoming overly prescriptive.

· The WG discussed Prelim Rec 3 on definition of “reasonable investigation” and use of reasonably available data.

· The draft language proposed that investigations rely on information reasonably available to registrars through ordinary operations.

· Key discussion points included: 

· The meaning of “all means within its control.”

· Whether language created excessive obligations.

· The relationship between reasonableness and operational burden.

· WG members suggested replacing “all” with “reasonable” to avoid requiring exhaustive investigations.

4. Refine Strawpersons CQ5 and CQ6 (25min)

• The WG reviewed a straw proposal on CQ5.

• Some WG members noted that the current text did not directly answer the charter question.

• WG members noted that existing recourse mechanisms should be identified and documented and WG members should evaluate whether gaps exist.

• WG members noted some difficulty listing remedies when ADC processes themselves are not externally visible.

• Other WG members noted potential burdens associated with documentation obligations.

• Chair added that CQ9 will further get into the details of “demonstrating compliance”.

• WG reviewed a straw proposal on CQ6 – timeline for ADC. 

• The WG reviewed multiple timing proposals, including:

· “Promptly” with no fixed timeline.

· Initiation within 24 hours.

· Completion within 72 hours.

· Flexible guidance using promptness plus presumptive timing expectations.

· WG members noted the rationale for fixed timelines when existing contractual language already uses the term “promptly.”

· Some WG members expressed their support for the current language. Others noted they would like to see a specific timeline here. 

5. Next Steps on Impact Assessment(s) (10min)

· The WG discussed Charter Questions 1–7, including questions that considered potential impacts on Human Rights (HR) and Data Protection (DP).

· As suggested by WG members, Staff and LT is using the WG discussions and input to prepare an scoped assessment of potential HR and DP impacts.

· This scoped assessment is intended to help document and stabilize the current preliminary recommendation language and is not intended to replace the final comprehensive impact assessments.

· Once all CQs have been reviewed and the recommendation language further stabilizes, the WG will conduct the final impact assessments.

· Staff to share Draft Scoped Impact Assessment with WG for their review by next Thursday. 

· WG members noted 2 examples shared via list on potential impact on legitimate registrants. WG is kindly asked to review and react. 

6. AOB (5min)