Dear DNSAM PDP1,

Please find below the high-level notes and action items form today’s session 1 and 2.

Please note our next session is scheduled for Wednesday, 9 June at 10:00.

Staff has updated the Prelim Rec Review Doc with the discussed changes from today (in suggestion mode), please see below:

Action Items:

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Feodora on behalf of Support Staff

ICANN86 Policy Forum – DNSAM PDP1 Session 1 and 2

Action Items:

LT with support from Staff to develop prelim rec language for CQ8 and 9
Staff to update the Prelim Rec Review Document with the updates and suggestion agreed on during Session 1 and 2.
WG members to discuss with their groups the updated Rec and note any “cannot live with” items (if any).

Important links/docs:

High Level Meeting Minutes – ICANN86 DNSAM PDP Session 1 & 2

Discussion on CQ8

WG members noted including a sunset or review mechanism in the policy.
WG members generally supported periodic policy evaluation, with a two-year holistic review suggested.
Concerns were raised about making the policy overly prescriptive.
LT noted to not “overthink” this CQ and focus on the “policy goal” and effort made.
Discussion acknowledged challenges in measuring effectiveness.

Discussion on CQ9

Discussion cantered on requiring registrars to maintain internal documentation describing ADC procedures in the course of conducting their ordinary business.
WG members suggested to remove the last sentence of straw proposal.
ICANN Org noted “different documentation format” I
Concerns were raised regarding ineffective “check-the-box” reviews and transparency around whether ADCs are performed.
Existing registry agreement language (Spec 11.3.B) was discussed as a potential language model.
Some participants supported strengthening language from “should” to “must” where appropriate.

Discussion on PR1:

WG members agreed to add proposed definition of Compromised Domains in glossary.
The advisory definition of compromised domains was discussed as a basis for further work.
WG agreed to add in rationale that mitigation on existing contractual obligation should not be substantively delayed due to ADC trigger.

Discussion on PR2:

Discussion addressed concerns regarding the phrase “reasonable investigation.”
WG agreed on proposed update based on slide – removal of “review at least one data point”

Discussion on PR3:

No major concerns were raised regarding replacing “reasonably available” with “reasonably accessible.”
Participants discussed reseller obligations and registrar responsibility under consensus policy requirements.
Agreement that registrars remain responsible for relevant contractual obligations, including reseller compliance.
Discussion noted that “reasonable” is widely used in existing agreements and Compliance is comfortable with its current interpretation.

Discussion on PR5:

Discussion on PR6:

Extensive discussion occurred on whether to establish fixed timelines.
Participants generally favoured retaining “promptly” rather than specifying 24-hour or 72-hour requirements.
IPC expressed interest in measuring response times as part of effectiveness metrics rather than as a strict policy requirement.
Concerns were raised that strict timelines could be counterproductive and could allow abuse to continue longer.
BC ultimately accepted use of “promptly” in place of a 24-hour timeline proposal.
Outcome: broad alignment on “promptly”.

Discussion on PR7:

Agreement that several topics should be flagged for future policy consideration rather than included as policy recommendations.
Topics identified included:
- Transparency regarding mitigation actions.
- Recourse mechanisms.
- Cross-registrar intelligence sharing.
- Registry-level abuse patterns.
- Frameworks for contracted-party information sharing.
LT suggested communicating these issues to Council through a letter rather than an annex to the report.