Hi Steve, all,

With reference to the Action Item – Councilors to check in with their groups and identify its priority topics and/or what represents low hanging fruit, the following is the input from At-Large (limited to the gaps which polled at high priority to At-Large):

At-Large High Priority Gaps (in descending order of priority)

1. Gap 20 Delayed ICANN enforcement actions
2. Gap 27 Awareness on reporting abuse (Low hanging fruit)
3. Gap 10 Broaden use of abuse data for preventive action (Low hanging fruit)
4-Tie. Gap 15 No sanctions/deterrents for recurring non-compliance by CPs
4-Tie. Enforcement challenges additional gap: More transparency in action/enforcement outcomes
6. Gap 12: Lack of proactive/timely verification at registration
7. Complainant reports additional gap: Requirement to inform complainant of complaint outcome (Low hanging fruit)
8-Tie. Gap 1 Investigate associated domains ("pivot") (Low hanging fruit)
8-Tie. Mitigating info from CPs additional gap: Absence of standardized reporting formats across CPs, no public access to aggregated abuse mitigation data, and lack of third-party audits to verify accuracy of reported actions
10. Gap 26: Underuse of predictive algorithms for early detection
11. Gap 3: Unregulated subdomain abuse
12. Gap 2: Withhold unrestricted API access to new customers
13-Tie. Gap 5: Inefficient coordination on DGA-based abuse to support LEA
13-Tie. Gap 22: Limited transparency in mitigation actions taken, reducing accountability and oversight.


Kind regards,
Justine



On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 at 02:09, Steve Chan via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

 

Please see the notes and actions items from the DNS Abuse Small Team call on 3 July 2025.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

DNS Abuse Small Team Wiki

 

Action Items

  • Transpose new comments from At-Large
  • Councilors to check in with their groups and identify its priority topics and/or what represents low hanging fruit.

Welcome

  • Greetings from World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20 High-Level Event 2025!
  • Handing off to staff for facilitation today, about halfway through.

Continued Discussion of List of Gaps – New Feedback

  • Reviewing G5 & G32 – no comments
  • Reviewing G8 & G14
    • Might not be relevant for policy making necessarily
  • Reviewing G18 & G22
    • Justine to check in with At-Large on input related to items that did not poll as high-priority. However, new input has been added.
    • For RySG/RrSG, detailed info about mitigating DNS Abuse provides blueprint to bad actors. Need to be mindful of this concern in thinking how/what info to share in reporting. This seems like another item that ICANN Compliance could take on not directly (perhaps suggested by this small team/Issue Report).
      • Where policy development may not be the optimal path forward, capture the intention and cascade throughout the documentation (small team report/gap analysis, in Issue Report, reflect (or not) in draft charter).
    • DGA work headed up by Keith Drazek and being discussed in the ccNSO. Might be evidence that this work doesn’t need to be in policy development.
    • Reminder – Compliance is undertaking new initiatives to evolve their enforcement. Should seek to integrate the impact of these new initiatives in both our small team report and in the Issue Report, if relevant.
    • Generally appreciative of the approach of making progress where possible, without always relying on policy development. However, for audits, there is often pushback about being asked for certain things, especially if the action is not required (e.g., gathering certain types of data). There is some nervousness about the PDP being too big/broad in scope and the PDP gets bogged down. How can we make sure to capture the point that this work can be done efficiently and effectively? Capturing alternative methods to address may help, especially in the small team report. As well as Councilors communicating to their constituents. The report can also emphasize where consensus can be found.
  • Reviewing G3 & G30 – no comments
  • Reviewing G11, G23, & G26
    • NCSG comments added by staff where it seemed appropriate. NCSG Councilors should take a look to ensure that the comments were assigned appropriately.
  • Reviewing new CSG input – no comments

Action Item – Transpose new comments from At-Large

 

Review Preliminary Recommendations Document

  • The suggested edits come from the mindset of getting the scope and sequencing of work right.
  • Clarifying comments - draft charter is integrated into the Preliminary Issue Report, subject to public comment, and subject to further amendment from Council.
  • There is concern about the efficiency and effectiveness of a PDP. One idea is to only include a charter for the first topic (or two). Some concerns about the approach though as it might not be apparent which items should be prioritized.
  • Question about who drafts the subsequent charters for future work if not everything is captured in the first chartered work. It would be Council or a small team of Councilors.
  • Initial thought from staff is to frame as a multi-phased PDP but taking into account comments from small team members, perhaps limited to just two or maybe no more than 3 topics.
  • In terms of identifying items, the GAC has suggested their priority topics.
  • Generally, it’s presented as 1:1 between Issue Report and PDP. However, there could be creative options available, like only initiating work on a subset of issues.
  • Suggestion from staff that the associated domain check and gating of APIs seem to be the topics where the community has aligned. Councilors unable to respond on the fly.

Action Item – Councilors to check in with their groups and identify its priority topics and/or what represents low hanging fruit.

  • For the preventative gaps, some concern about the suggestions to disregard economic issues. Agreement that pricing restrictions must be avoided, but need to at least be able to track down the information of the bad actor.

Update to GNSO Council

  • Update will be sharing progress to date and ensuring awareness that the expectation is a request for an Issue Report in August.

Looking Ahead: August Council Vote Request for Issue Report

  • No comments

AOB

  • Next call to revert to normal time and day - Thursday, 17 July 2025 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes

 

 

 

Steven Chan


VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations

 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


                                                                  

Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

 

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar 

_______________________________________________
gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.