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<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952425/2026...> 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-... 4. WG members to: * Add comments and suggested edits in the collaboration document. * Add language WG members can live with. * Contribute to glossary definitions. 1. 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... * CollabDocument: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pL... * Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/YVtg31rWi5S0fBZ7N0vdJnou2UKdIPq4gxcg266xQDHfY... 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<mailto:GNSO-Secs@icann.org> only, NOT to the whole WG list. 1. 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. 1. 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)