Dear DNSAM PDP1,

Please find below the high-level notes and Action Items from yesterday`s meeting.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 11 May at 12:30 UTC.

Kind regards,

Feodora on behalf of Support Staff

2026-05-04 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG

Action Items:

1. Staff/ LT to add glossary to Collab Document. 
2. Staff/LT update Collab Document based on WG discussion.
3. Staff/LT to provide info/reference where possible on what data registrars must contractually collect based on contract agreement – note: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/registration-data-policy
4. WG members to:

1. Add comments and suggested edits in the collaboration document.

2. Add language WG members can live with.

3. Contribute to glossary definitions.

5. NCSG to provide more granular language on potential adverse impact on registrants.

Important Documents/Links:

• Wiki/Slides: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952425/2026-05-04+DNS+Abuse+Mitigation+PDP1+WG
• CollabDocument: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pLqNE/edit?usp=sharing
• Recording:  https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/YVtg31rWi5S0fBZ7N0vdJnou2UKdIPq4gxcg266xQDHfYEdGC7FvkBGWawbR4mDR6s57A4BvsRCFDMw.3gDlKvTqlfOrh-XU

High-Level Notes: 

1. Welcome (5min)

• Chair opened the meeting.

• Apologies were noted and can be found on the wiki page of each meeting. 

• Please send your apology to GNSO-Secs@icann.org only, NOT to the whole WG list. 

2. PDP Updates (10min)

• Chair provided an update on potential methods to be used in the future to increase/enhance WG participation during calls. 

• Goal: Encourage broader input before reaching consensus calls and avoid late-stage introduction of previously unexpressed views.

• Chair noted that a glossary will be introduced in the collaboration document.

• Purpose: Create a shared baseline understanding across key terms and improve navigation for external readers of reports.

3. Refine strawperson on CQ3 (20min)

• Chair introduced the updated strawperson on CQ3. 

• WG members asked whether investigation obligations are limited to data “reasonably available” to registrars.

• WG members noted: Registrars can only act on data they possess.

• Resellers may have additional/different data (e.g., payment info).

• Obligation remains with the registrar, even if delegated.

• Flexibility is necessary for operational feasibility.

• Other WG members noted:  Potential risk/concern of creating a loophole (“out”) if limited to available data to registrar.

• Asked for clarity on enforcement of ADC when resellers hold data potentially relevant for ADC.

• WG suggested refining language to avoid potential “loopholes” and maintain operational feasibility, ideally clarify interaction with reseller data.

• WG members discussed whether the baseline criteria should be “At least one data point” is sufficient or “reasonable number of indicators” should be required when available to conduct ADC.

• WG members noted concern that minimum requirement may allow “superficial” compliance.

• Other WG members noted: policy should define a minimum baseline, not exhaustive procedures.

4. Discussion on strawperson CQ4 (30min)

• Chair presented the strawperson language on CQ4. 

• WG initial reaction was generally positive. 

• Some WG members noted investigation should not exclude information provided in abuse reports.

5. Start deliberations on CQ5 (20min)

6. AOB (5min)