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: * Prelim Rec Review Doc (we have archived last version to have a reference point): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?us... Action Items: * WG to review in case any update or suggestion from today was missed. * WG to review Prelim Rec language and discuss/add potential “cannot live with” * WG to review the glossary in the Prelim Rec Review Doc (last tab) 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: * Prelim Rec Review Doc (we have archived last version to have a reference point): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udLt1o9rwCc4xNRsuw6B-5onjpI63VDA/edit?us... * Session link: * Session 1 https://icann86.sched.com/event/2NQMr/gnso-dns-abuse-mitigation-pdp-1-1-of-4 * Session 2 https://icann86.sched.com/event/2NQMt/gnso-dns-abuse-mitigation-pdp-1-2-of-4 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: * Participants discussed simplifying language related to privacy safeguards. * Support was expressed for referencing compliance with applicable law(s). 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.