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?us... 4. Scoped Impact Assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18xVFX-IXfEgPnIj2UaXmwiXsWE8FY-Jo/edit?us... 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<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952465/2026...> 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: * Wiki space/slides: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952465/2026... * Session recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/X5ToLe1DYY8f-DSM3Lu2D3Y8jn3ieH-3ICCp23-k_G0vh... * CollabDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pL... * PrelimRec Review Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?us... * Scoped Impact Assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18xVFX-IXfEgPnIj2UaXmwiXsWE8FY-Jo/edit?us... 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)