Dear DNSAM PDP1, Please find below the high-level notes and Action Items from today’s WG call. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 18 May at 12:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of Support Staff 2026-05-11 DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1 WG<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952445/2026...> Action Items: * Staff to provide strawperson language on CQ5 and 6 based on today`s WG discussion. * WG members to review and provide feedback to CQ1-4 Important documents/links: * Wiki/Slides: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DAMP1/pages/935952445/2026... * Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/czEsEiPY0j9r2m-sKxkX1D072T1q9fwm8rh01IRoLj-RT... * CollabDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GxM-Yrgv6sZPEYU8ikW4cRM5YqWsJuWGiQyO39pL... High-Level Notes: 1. Welcome (5min) * Nick Wenban-Smith chaired the meeting, 1. PDP Updates (10min) * Vice Chair presented the path towards ICANN86 and what to expect. * VC shared some best practices when discussing and drafting policy recommendations. * Please provide rationale and alternative language, in case you/your SG cannot live with current draft language. 1. Start deliberations on CQ5 (35min) * WG members noted that ADCs are primarily investigative mechanisms intended to identify related abusive domains, while mitigation actions (such as suspension etc.) fall under existing RAA obligations and are out of scope for this PDP. * WG members noted that a recourse mechanism (outside of current PDP scope) should be added to the list of topics that can be addressed in the future by GNSO Council. * The group discussed whether ADC activities themselves could create adverse impacts for legitimate registrants and what these could be. * WG noted that should ADC have adverse impact on legitimate registrants the PDP should discuss whether remedies exist. * WG members noted existing procedures related to abuse mitigation and registrant protections. 1. Start deliberations on CQ6 (35min) * WG members discussed whether ADC reviews and mitigation actions should be governed by fixed timelines or continue under the existing RAA “promptly” standard. * Many members supported maintaining the existing flexible standard: * They noted DNS abuse cases vary significantly in complexity, urgency, registrar size, and evidentiary requirements. * Members noted that “promptly” already appears multiple times in the RAA and is enforceable through contextual compliance review. * WG members noted potential concerns that rigid deadlines could encourage rushed investigations, false positives, fragmented operational processes, or inconsistent mitigation quality. * Other WG members noted more specific guidance or timelines and pointed out that defined timelines would improve accountability, consistency, and auditability. 1. AOB (5min)