Marc, While I agree that mitigation in itself is out of scope I also think that it is very important to protect the "innocent", as it were, as is the matter of natural justice, ie giving the other side a chance to be heard. I assume it it self evident that false positives would be restored as a matter of urgency. el On 2026/05/11 14:24, trachtenbergm--- via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp wrote:
Michaela,
When you say “enforcement” below do you mean mitigation? If so, my understanding is that this PDP only covers the associated domain check. Any mitigation obligations would already be addressed in the RAA and would be out of scope here.
Best regards,
* *
*Marc H. Trachtenberg * [...] *From:*Michaela Nakayama Shapiro via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse- pdp@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2026 1:55 PM *To:* Julie Bisland via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] NCSG Q5 Proposed Language [...]
/Where enforcement actions affect multiple domains based on an association determination, appropriate safeguards must be available to protect registrants from unintended harm. Registrants and end-users have the right to mechanisms for remedy related to DNS abuse mitigation action(s). /
/Registrars must ensure that mitigation measures are proportionate, transparent, and supported by well-evidenced DNS Abuse. Affected registrants should be provided an appeal process./
/This includes, but is not limited to: /
* /providing avenues for impacted registrants to seek clarification or review through dispute or support channels;/
* /clear procedures for the registrant to appeal the mitigation action(s)/
* /where relevant, for the reversal of any mitigation action(s), where applicable/
*Michaela Nakayama Shapiro *(she/her/hers) [...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply