Dear DNSAM PDP1,

 

Please find below the high-level notes and action item from yesterday`s meeting.

 

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 8 June at 11:45 (Spain local time).

 

Please note the two main action items for the WG to complete before ICANN86 (as introduced last week):

Action Items:

  1. WG Members to review prelim rec document above and identify any areas of “CANNOT LIVE WITH” before 8 June.
  2. Staff to share scoped impact assessment (HR and DP) on current prelim language with WG today. WG to review before 10 June.  
  3. PrelimRec Review Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true 
  4. Scoped Impact Assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18xVFX-IXfEgPnIj2UaXmwiXsWE8FY-Jo/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true 

 

We wish you all safe travels to Spain and look forward to seeing you in person.

 

Kind regards,

Feodora on behalf of Support Staff

 

 

 

2026-06-01 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG

Action Items:

  1. WG Members to review prelim rec document above and identify any areas of “CANNOT LIVE WITH” before 8 June.
  2. Staff to share scoped impact assessment (HR and DP) on current prelim language with WG today. WG to review before 10 June.  
  3. Identified areas of concerns/feedback/questions will be added and discussed during ICANN86 Working Sessions.
  4. Staff to develop straw proposal on CQ8 and 9 based on WG discussion.

Important docs/links:

High-level notes:

  1. Welcome (5min)
  2. ICANN86 Prep (10min)
    • Chair introduced the objectives for the 4 ICANN86 sessions.
    • Main focus: review preliminary recs, review scoped impact assessment, develop preliminary recs for CQ8 and 9.
  1. Start Deliberations on CQ8 (35min)
    • Discussion focused on how to measure the policy's effectiveness in the future.
    • Some WG members suggested a two-year review cycle.
    • Some WG members noted that reporting and reviews are different things and should be discussed separately, while agreeing that a two-year review period sounded appropriate.
    • WG members questioned whether "average uptime" or "reduction in uptime" are meaningful or measurable indicators.
    • Some WG members noted that effectiveness measures should not be limited to quantitative statistics.
    • WG members noted to seek input from OCTO on potential data sets/metrics. support for seeking OCTO input regarding metrics and effectiveness evaluation.
    • OCTO was viewed as a valuable source of expertise rather than a prerequisite for policy advancement.
    • Staff noted the Charter input on the “metrics” question. The charter notes following considerations:

·         Identification of metrics used to measure whether policy goals are achieved

·         Identification of potential problems in attaining the data or developing the metrics

·         A suggested timeframe in which the measures should be performed

·         Define current state baselines of the policy and define initial benchmarks that define success or failure                          

  1. Start Deliberations on CQ9 (35min)
    • Discussion focused on how Rrs can demonstrate compliance with ADC requirements.
    • Support Staff provided some considerations when discussing this question: 

·         In general terms, the method for demonstrating compliance would likely follow the same principles used today for other DNS Abuse-related requirements. 

·         Registrars typically demonstrate compliance by providing information and documented evidence that shows what actions they took, when, and why. 

·         The “best-case scenario” for demonstrating compliance would be a clear, auditable record that matches the language of the obligation. 

·         Evidence might include logs, investigation notes, or ticketing-system entries showing that the required review was performed and the results were acted upon. 

·         The above is only illustrative.  The exact form of evidence would depend on how the obligation is drafted.

·         Ultimately, Compliance can only enforce (and can only require documentation of) what the RAA itself expressly states. 

·         Some WG members noted that registrars should be able to demonstrate:

·         when the ADC obligation was triggered,

·         what indicators were reviewed,

·         what steps were taken,

·         what conclusions were reached,

·         rationale for those conclusions.

·         WG members discussed whether registrars should be required to create additional logs. They noted compliance should rely on documentation already generated through existing processes.

·         WG members discussed whether high-level transparency reporting could provide accountability without excessive burden.

  1. AOB (5min)