Dear DNSAM PDP1, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 20 April at 12:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of Support Staff 2026-04-13 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935755797/2026...> Action Items: 1. Leadership with support from staff develop and circulate iterative assessment questionnaire/checklist/tool/document for WG consideration. 2. Staff to update strawpersons in Collaboration Document based on WG discussion. 3. Staff to summarize discussion on CQ3 for WG consideration and follow-up discussion. 4. WG members to review Collaboration Document and suggest edits, changes, data, considerations and alternative language to strawpersons on CQ1 and CQ2. Important Links: * Collaboration Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pL... * Wiki/Slides (below agenda): https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935755797/2026... * Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/PxWfCxjeNcZxg9aCnPIiedR2Sq9GIJ-ky0jTB3GdxpmIu... High Level Notes: 1. Welcome (5 min) 2. Update Zoom Features/rules of engagement (5 min) * Working group roles clarified: · Members expected to actively participate in meetings and in consensus call. · Participants can engage during deliberations but not in consensus call · Alternates only participate if the primary member is unavailable. · Observers can attend calls but no right of posting and communicating in chat or via Email. · If alternates/observers want to share input to the WG they can do so via their SG rep. 3. Update on Milestones for April/May 2026 ( 5 min) * 7 meetings completed. Achievements: · Leadership team finalized. · Work plan and timeline agreed and sent to Council. · Collaboration document established. · Deliberations continuing Charter Questions 1–3. · Strawperson progressing CQ1 and CQ2 · Remaining before ICANN86 - 6 meetings (around 9 hours total). · Planned work: · Discuss Cluster A (1-6) charter questions. · Consider early input for each question. · Develop strawperson draft text. · Begin initial impact assessment on draft language. 4. Update on iterative approach on impact assessment (5 min) * Proposed Approach: Based on WG member input during ICANN86 conduct initial “lightweight”, iterative assessments per charter cluster. Final comprehensive assessment conducted at the end. Aim to avoid discovering “untenable” or “not board-ready” outcomes at the end. Lightweight/iterative approaches do NOT replace final required assessment. * Impact Assessments include: · Human rights<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yuJuDXh_M9dvVhQWsH1pYS2MEpl-I2dDeSrW...> · Global public interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uVOXywoowxvM1Hn5GuCkkinuZiMc4smc/edi...> · Existing consensus policies<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies> 5. Discussion Strawperson on CQ2 (40 min) * Reminder on strawperson to CQ1 was presented. * Strawperson for CQ2 was presented after. * Possible criteria for CQ2 MAY include but are not limited to: · Same account /customer /registrant /“end customer” · Common patterns or coordinated activity · Information reasonably available to registrar · Some WG members noted minimum baseline obligations are needed · Others emphasize variability across registrar business models · “Customer,” “registrant,” “account,” “end customer” differ across models. Language should be updated accordingly. · Not all registrars can access same data (e.g., IP, registrant info) · Some WG members suggested to focus on same threat actor, same abusive scheme/campaign 6. Deliberations on CQ 3 (25 min) * Chair presented CQ3 as well as the early input to CQ3 and themes from previous discussion that fit into this question. * Some WG members noted this CQ cannot be answered without agreeing on CQ2. * Some WG noted that “investigation must remain distinct from enforcement”. * Chat input suggested checking at least one reliable internal data point, such as “same account/registrant email,” and using additional technical or abuse-intelligence signals where needed. * Some Members noted the WG should consider the ICANN Advisory on DNS Abuse contract amendments: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/advisories/documents/advisory-co... 7. AOB (5 min)