December 2025 - gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam

Comments and items to be resolved - Updated Charter and Action Items
by jen＠dot.asia Dec. 24, 2025

Dec. 24, 2025

Dear All, Thank you for those who input edits and comments by the deadline – we note that there are a few unresolved comments. We can take this up when ICANN returns from holiday break. Please also note that I will be sending the draft motion to the council list shortly as well for those of us who would like some time to take a look or still have working days ahead before we all return fresh for 2026. Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P… Wishing all a restful holiday season. Best, Jen From: John Emery via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2025 12:42 AM To: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Updated Charter and Action Items Hello All, Thank you again for working diligently this week, we appreciate all the compromises that have been made to get to this stage of the Charter. Staff has cleaned up the Charter questions and updated the agreed upon Membership Structure. ACTION ITEM: Please review the Charter with your respective groups and add any input into the document (and comment on other’s input) by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 23 December.(This timing will allow U.S.-based staff to send to Council prior to the ICANN holiday closure). Please pay special attention to the charter questions and the membership model in your review. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P… Thank you, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Updated Charter and Action Items
by John Emery Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

Hello All, Thank you again for working diligently this week, we appreciate all the compromises that have been made to get to this stage of the Charter. Staff has cleaned up the Charter questions and updated the agreed upon Membership Structure. ACTION ITEM: Please review the Charter with your respective groups and add any input into the document (and comment on other’s input) by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 23 December.(This timing will allow U.S.-based staff to send to Council prior to the ICANN holiday closure). Please pay special attention to the charter questions and the membership model in your review. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P… Thank you, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Post Call | DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team | Friday, 19 December 2025
by Terri Agnew Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

Dear all, Please use link below to access the attendance and the recording links on the small team wiki page for the DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team call held on Friday, 19 December 2025 at 14:00 UTC. DNS Abuse Small Team Wiki: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB0K Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

**Starting in 15 minutes | Meeting Invite | DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team | Friday, 19 December at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

**Starting in 15 minutes **If you are unable to attend, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> to note your apology. Dear all, The DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team will take place on Friday, 19 December 2025 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/96611661142?pwd=K2VpaHlzNkNuY1J6YzRYcW1sd0VjUT09 Meeting ID: 966 1166 1142 Passcode: Z4B3SUR!U& Wiki space: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB0K ********** AGENDAs: Monday 15 December 13:00-14:30 UTC Human Rights Concerns in Charter 1. Update language in charter to ensure human rights discussion throughout Working Group deliberations 2. Ensure consensus in charter questions amongst charter drafting team Tuesday 16 December 13:00-14:30 UTC Working Group Model 1. Discussion of WG Model – Representative 2. Allocation of Representative Seats Friday 19 December 14:00-15:30 UTC Finalize Consensus Charter Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Proposal: Updated WG Model – DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1
by Jennifer Chung Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

Dear charter drafting team, I am writing to reflect a concern that has become increasingly clear in our recent discussions regarding Working Group composition for the DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP. It appears that we are now in a position where multiple groups are signalling that their requested level of representation is contingent on what other groups receive (e.g., if one group is allocated six seats, others will also require six or equivalent increases). While these positions are understandable when viewed in isolation, taken together they lead us down a path that is neither workable nor consistent with the objectives of an effective PDP. At some point, continued escalation of seat numbers ceases to be about representation or expertise and instead becomes a proxy for unresolved concerns about trust, impact, and influence. If every adjustment triggers a corresponding demand elsewhere, we risk creating a Working Group that is too large to function effectively, difficult to chair, and ultimately less capable of delivering timely, credible consensus outcomes. It is also important to recall that, under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and the Consensus Playbook, consensus is not determined by voting or by numeric strength alone. Chairs are expected to assess the substance of positions, the degree of support across stakeholder categories, and the presence of reasoned objections. Increasing seat counts does not, in itself, guarantee that concerns will be better addressed. For these reasons, I believe it would be helpful for us to pause the numbers-based escalation and instead re-center the discussion around a small set of shared principles, for example: how to ensure that materially affected parties have their operational and implementation concerns fully heard; how to preserve the visibility and inclusivity of all relevant parties; how to keep the Working Group at a size that remains manageable and fit for purpose; and how to use established tools to address concerns without triggering further seat escalation. Leadership has taken the time to reflect on the discussion and feedback received and provides the group with an elaborate proposal for a way forward that can address most of the concerns and allow for a well-functioning WG and PDP. Please find the proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZvDm7FTl2WcgrPOKGiDTcDcgG0uHp4s/edit There are concrete models, used in other PDPs, that separate participation from decision authority, cap formal representation while allowing additional expertise, or provide time-bound or conditional adjustments tied to workload rather than parity. Exploring such approaches may allow us to meet the underlying needs being expressed without continuing an upward spiral on seat numbers. I would strongly encourage us to focus the next stage of discussion on identifying one of these stabilising approaches, rather than continuing to negotiate purely on headline numbers. Doing so will give us a much better chance of reaching agreement on a charter that is broadly supported and capable of delivering results. Thank you for considering this, and I look forward to continuing the discussion constructively. Best, Jen Sent with Aqua Mail for Android

6 6

Charter Drafting Team Reminders for Friday 19 December Meeting
by John Emery Dec. 18, 2025

Dec. 18, 2025

Dear DNS Abuse PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team, As a reminder, our last and final charter drafting session will begin tomorrow 19 December at 14:00 UTC, with the goal of finalizing the Charter and agreeing to the membership model. Given the time constraint, we would ask all members to review the documents below and focus in for discussion only on can’t live with items. Recalling Jen’s earlier email to the team, the Charter drafting leadership has taken the time to reflect on the discussion and feedback received and provides the group with a proposal for a way forward that seeks to address most of the concerns and allow for a well-functioning WG and PDP. Please find the proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZvDm7FTl2WcgrPOKGiDTcDcgG0uHp4s/edit <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13ZvDm7FTl2Wc…> The redline draft charter is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P… The opportunities for inclusion in a representative model put forth by Sam is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVEf7RM9Ejc_6mw8XsMlbUuH-wqQly09bIDPWIh… Ultimately, we hope to resolve outstanding issues, and we appreciate engagement by the team members on list and in the documents. As a reminder from our previous Action Items for Friday’s meeting: Action Items (Monday 15 December) * Councilors to Review the updated charter questions and redlines. Provide specific proposed text and rationale for any suggested changes, particularly where concerns exist about scope, safeguards, or impacts. * to clarify that triggers are tied to DNS abuse cases, without embedding PDP answers in the question text. * to address potential overlap between questions on association criteria and investigation steps, including possible consolidation. * ensure questions on data access and privacy safeguards explicitly consider impacts on registrants and end users, and potential remedies. * Deadline for final input Friday 19 December. Action Items (Tuesday 16 December) 1. Small Team to consult with their respective groups on membership model preference and seat allocation proposal 2. Sam to work on a Google document outlining potential mechanisms (e.g., special sessions, input channels, guardrails) to address openness and community input 3. During the next meeting, the group is expected to: i. Decide on the membership model ii. Progress toward resolving concerns with the seat allocation iii. Discuss pending comments on the draft charter Thank you, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Structural and Membership Parity is not up for debate
by farzaneh badii Dec. 18, 2025

Dec. 18, 2025

Dear all, I want to be very clear about the NCSG position regarding seat allocation for this PDP. Equal seat allocation between the NCSG and the CSG is not a matter for debate within the drafting team, nor is it a question to be resolved through discussions. Structural parity between the two stakeholder groups is already established within the GNSO framework and we will not undo structural parity through discussions here. The fact that the NCSG operates with a different internal model, and does not subdivide into as many constituencies as the CSG, does not justify unequal representation. NCSG represents a broad and diverse set of non-commercial interests, and its legitimacy and weight are not contingent on the number of formal constituencies it maintains. To be clear, the NCSG is not requesting additional seats, nor are we proposing a reduction in seats for others. We are therefore reaffirming and asserting the equality of representation that already exists between the NCSG and the CSG within the GNSO structure. That equality should be reflected in this PDP in the same way it is reflected at the Council level: equal representation for the NCSG and the CSG. Individual, constituencies and stakeholder views about whether such equality is desirable do not alter the existing structural framework, nor should they affect seat allocation decisions. This is not a matter of compromise for us. Equality of representation is a foundational element of the GNSO structure, and it should not be weakened or re-negotiated in the context of PDP charters. Accordingly, seat allocation for this PDP should mirror Council seat parity and allocate the same number of representatives to the NCSG as to the CSG. Best regards, Farzaneh

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invite | DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team | Friday, 19 December at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 18, 2025

Dec. 18, 2025

**If you are unable to attend, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> to note your apology. Dear all, The DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Charter Drafting Team will take place on Friday, 19 December 2025 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/96611661142?pwd=K2VpaHlzNkNuY1J6YzRYcW1sd0VjUT09 Meeting ID: 966 1166 1142 Passcode: Z4B3SUR!U& Wiki space: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB0K ********** AGENDAs: Monday 15 December 13:00-14:30 UTC Human Rights Concerns in Charter 1. Update language in charter to ensure human rights discussion throughout Working Group deliberations 2. Ensure consensus in charter questions amongst charter drafting team Tuesday 16 December 13:00-14:30 UTC Working Group Model 1. Discussion of WG Model – Representative 2. Allocation of Representative Seats Friday 19 December 14:00-15:30 UTC Finalize Consensus Charter Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC
by Feodora Hamza Dec. 17, 2025

Dec. 17, 2025

Dear draft charter team, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, 19 December at 14:00 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team Action Items 1. Small Team to consult with their respective groups on membership model preference and seat allocation proposal 2. Sam to work on a Google document outlining potential mechanisms (e.g., special sessions, input channels, guardrails) to address openness and community input concerns within a representative model. 3. Staff to provide a starting point on Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVEf7RM9Ejc_6mw8XsMlbUuH-wqQly09bIDPWIh…> for Sam to develop further. 4. During the next meeting the group is expected to: i. Decide on the membership model ii. Progress toward resolving concerns with the seat allocation iii. Discuss pending comments on the draft charter Summary of discussion 1. Majority support emerged for a representative working group model. Multiple SGs expressed support for a representative model as the most effective structure for this PDP, citing efficiency, continuity, and the need for relevant expertise. 2. ALAC, some NCSG participants, and individual contributors continued to advocate for a representative-plus-open, emphasizing inclusivity. 3. Consensus that expertise and continuity are critical success factors of a good WG model 4. It was reaffirmed that all PDP participation models will allow observers by default, addressing some transparency and newcomer concerns. 5. No agreement on seat allocation; issue remains unresolved * Significant disagreement remains regarding: i. Whether NCSG should receive six seats ii. Whether existing two-seat-per-constituency allocations should remain unchanged iii. Whether registrars should receive additional seats due to implementation impact (3 seats) 1. It was clarified that the PDP chair selection is separate from member seat allocation and handled via Council leadership and/or the Standing Selection Committee, not by working group member vote. From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 15 December 2025 at 18:12 To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>, "lawrence(a)microboss.org" <lawrence(a)microboss.org>, "Mohr, Susan" <Susan.Mohr(a)lumen.com>, Vivek Goyal <vivekg(a)ldotr.red>, "compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM" <compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM>, "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org> Cc: John Emery <john.emery(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Monday, 15 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC Dear draft charter team, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. Due to the tight deadline of this group we are using the individual Email addresses instead of the distribution list, because not all members have enrolled via ICANN join. * Important: We cannot add you to the small team’s roster or mailing list until we have received your enrollment. In addition, we cannot add you to attendance for today’s call until you have enrolled. If you have not yet enrolled, please enroll immediately (see email from Terri “Action needed | ICANN Join…” sent to ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org> list); once enrolled, you will be added to the mailing list and member wiki page. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team ========== DNS Abuse PDP1 Draft Charter Team - Meeting 15 December Action Items * Staff to circulate a redlined version<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P…> of the charter reflecting discussion points. * Councilors to Review the updated charter questions and redlines. Provide specific proposed text and rationale for any suggested changes, particularly where concerns exist about scope, safeguards, or impacts. * to clarify that triggers are tied to DNS abuse cases, without embedding PDP answers in the question text. * to Address potential overlap between questions on association criteria and investigation steps, including possible consolidation. * Ensure questions on data access and privacy safeguards explicitly consider impacts on registrants and end users, and potential remedies. * Councilors to prepare to discuss the WG model during the next call. * Deadline for final input Friday 19 December. Discussion on Charter · The charter must be fit for purpose and finalized before the PDP on Associated Domain Checks can convene. · The charter must not pre-empt or perform the work of the PDP; it should only define the framework and questions for the PDP to answer. · The charter questions should: o Focus on what the PDP should examine, not how registrars must operationalize outcomes. o Avoid being overly prescriptive or revealing investigative methods that could be exploited by bad actors. o Several questions were identified as potentially overlapping (notably those on defining associations and investigation steps), and there was agreement to review consolidation or re-ordering. Human rights considerations · The GPI framework and Human Rights Impact Assessment are mandatory PDP requirements and are reflected in the charter. · There was agreement that repeating human rights language throughout every question is unnecessary and risks cluttering the charter. · Instead, participants agreed it is preferable to: o Capture these considerations once, clearly, in an overarching section (e.g., a chapeau, scope, or dedicated section), and o Avoid duplicating the same language in every charter question. o Where core values or standards are referenced, the preference is to link to authoritative sources rather than restating or partially listing them. Registrar business models · There was agreement that the PDP/Charter must take into account different registrar business models. · Similar to human rights considerations, participants agreed this should be stated once at a high level, rather than added to each individual question.

4 6

Re: Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC
by Demetriou, Samantha Dec. 16, 2025

Dec. 16, 2025

Thank you, Feodora and Support Team. I’ve put a list of options for community engagement in the Google doc you set up for the team to review. I appreciate the help in getting this set up! Thanks, Sam From: Feodora Hamza via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 12:35 PM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>, "lawrence(a)microboss.org" <lawrence(a)microboss.org>, "Mohr, Susan" <Susan.Mohr(a)lumen.com>, Vivek Goyal <vivekg(a)ldotr.red>, "compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM" <compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM>, "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear draft charter team, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, 19 December at 14:00 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team Action Items 1. Small Team to consult with their respective groups on membership model preference and seat allocation proposal 2. Sam to work on a Google document outlining potential mechanisms (e.g., special sessions, input channels, guardrails) to address openness and community input concerns within a representative model. 3. Staff to provide a starting point on Google Doc for Sam to develop further. 4. During the next meeting the group is expected to: i. Decide on the membership model ii. Progress toward resolving concerns with the seat allocation iii. Discuss pending comments on the draft charter Summary of discussion Majority support emerged for a representative working group model. Multiple SGs expressed support for a representative model as the most effective structure for this PDP, citing efficiency, continuity, and the need for relevant expertise. ALAC, some NCSG participants, and individual contributors continued to advocate for a representative-plus-open, emphasizing inclusivity. Consensus that expertise and continuity are critical success factors of a good WG model It was reaffirmed that all PDP participation models will allow observers by default, addressing some transparency and newcomer concerns. No agreement on seat allocation; issue remains unresolved a. Significant disagreement remains regarding: i. Whether NCSG should receive six seats ii. Whether existing two-seat-per-constituency allocations should remain unchanged iii. Whether registrars should receive additional seats due to implementation impact (3 seats) It was clarified that the PDP chair selection is separate from member seat allocation and handled via Council leadership and/or the Standing Selection Committee, not by working group member vote. From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 15 December 2025 at 18:12 To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>, "lawrence(a)microboss.org" <lawrence(a)microboss.org>, "Mohr, Susan" <Susan.Mohr(a)lumen.com>, Vivek Goyal <vivekg(a)ldotr.red>, "compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM" <compsoftnet(a)GMAIL.COM>, "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam(a)icann.org> Cc: John Emery <john.emery(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Monday, 15 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC Dear draft charter team, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. Due to the tight deadline of this group we are using the individual Email addresses instead of the distribution list, because not all members have enrolled via ICANN join. Important: We cannot add you to the small team’s roster or mailing list until we have received your enrollment. In addition, we cannot add you to attendance for today’s call until you have enrolled. If you have not yet enrolled, please enroll immediately (see email from Terri “Action needed | ICANN Join…” sent to ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org list); once enrolled, you will be added to the mailing list and member wiki page. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team ========== DNS Abuse PDP1 Draft Charter Team - Meeting 15 December Action Items Staff to circulate a redlined version of the charter reflecting discussion points. Councilors to Review the updated charter questions and redlines. Provide specific proposed text and rationale for any suggested changes, particularly where concerns exist about scope, safeguards, or impacts. to clarify that triggers are tied to DNS abuse cases, without embedding PDP answers in the question text. to Address potential overlap between questions on association criteria and investigation steps, including possible consolidation. Ensure questions on data access and privacy safeguards explicitly consider impacts on registrants and end users, and potential remedies. Councilors to prepare to discuss the WG model during the next call. Deadline for final input Friday 19 December. Discussion on Charter · The charter must be fit for purpose and finalized before the PDP on Associated Domain Checks can convene. · The charter must not pre-empt or perform the work of the PDP; it should only define the framework and questions for the PDP to answer. · The charter questions should: o Focus on what the PDP should examine, not how registrars must operationalize outcomes. o Avoid being overly prescriptive or revealing investigative methods that could be exploited by bad actors. o Several questions were identified as potentially overlapping (notably those on defining associations and investigation steps), and there was agreement to review consolidation or re-ordering. Human rights considerations · The GPI framework and Human Rights Impact Assessment are mandatory PDP requirements and are reflected in the charter. · There was agreement that repeating human rights language throughout every question is unnecessary and risks cluttering the charter. · Instead, participants agreed it is preferable to: o Capture these considerations once, clearly, in an overarching section (e.g., a chapeau, scope, or dedicated section), and o Avoid duplicating the same language in every charter question. o Where core values or standards are referenced, the preference is to link to authoritative sources rather than restating or partially listing them. Registrar business models · There was agreement that the PDP/Charter must take into account different registrar business models. · Similar to human rights considerations, participants agreed this should be stated once at a high level, rather than added to each individual question.

1 0