Dear DNS Abuse Small Team, In addition to below, please find the updated documents for your review prior to the next of the Small Team. Please provide your comments directly into the document by 30 July. * Draft Motion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QUEuJuxG9tyA0k-qKV_UR_FwDNnRsix2/edit?us... * Updated Draft Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18AMsedMhKEox1196No0yS6ktqFbcTs2l/edit?us... (main changes are highlighted in the document) Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the support team From: Steve Chan via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> Reply to: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 24 July 2025 at 19:10 To: "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] 24 July 2025 Meeting Notes Dear DNS Abuse Small Team, Please see below the meeting notes and action items from our 24 July meeting of the DNS Abuse Small Team. Best, Steve Action Items: 1. Leadership and staff to propose a way to include the secondary priorities. This will likely include a table, an additional recommendation, and an explanatory paragraph about methodology. 2. Clarify the text in the report that the prioritized issues might not all warrant policy development. Notes: 1. Welcome * Hopefully wrapping up on recommendations today. 2. Final Input on Gaps Matrix * Streamlined gap IDs and associated them to the Phases/Lifecycle Category. Kept, but hid the original gap IDs since the stakeholder comments sometimes referenced them. * Hopefully close the matrix today. Try and limit to “can’t live with” type concerns, if any. 3. Review Update Draft Report * Added recommendations 2 and 3, which suggest focusing on limited topics for the first PDP coming out of the Issue Report, as well as which topics to concentrate on. * What is the proper terminology in respect of “bulk registrations”? Settled on just referencing domain names. 3.a Main Gaps for Issue Report * The various groups have provided input about which gaps should be prioritized, generally as comments in draft report. * The NCSG’s priority is for a dispute resolution mechanism/access to remedy. * If there is a difference in opinion on the priorities, how should we reconcile? Specifically, how should the additional topics be captured (e.g., NCSG and CSG gaps). * What is currently included is where there seems to be convergence. Are the additional gaps points of convergence? * Validation seems more appropriate for Council level discussion. * Confirmation: the prioritized gaps will not result in the additional gaps being dropped. * Is it better to determine priority once the Issue Report is completed, since part of the Issue Report determines whether the gap is within ICANN’s remit and GNSO policy making? * The Council could change course on the prioritized topics once the Issue Report is delivered. * The prioritized topics facilitate staff’s ability prepare the draft charter. * Could parallel work continue on determining the prioritizing for future work? May result in resourcing issues. And probably should wait for the completion of the Issue Report. Could add a point in the small team’s report to note that this additional work could carry on. * Request for a visualization of the priorities of the various groups. May make sense to include as text. Options to consider include: * Add a recommendation 4 that includes topics for a subsequent PDP * And/or include a description of methodology for identifying the top three priorities. * No objections from NCSG to focus on 3 gaps identified. * Unclear whether DGA topic requires policy work. The Issue Report will likely uncover whether or not this is well suited for a PDP or perhaps another mechanism. The CPH has some text that helps justify why policy work might be warranted. Action Item: Leadership and staff to propose a way to include the secondary priorities. This will likely include a table, an additional recommendation, and an explanatory paragraph about methodology. Action Item: Clarify the text in the report that the prioritized issues might not all warrant policy development. 4. Review Draft Motion * The text might need to be adjusted (e.g., if there is another gap to include, or if the small team wants to identify that policy development might not be appropriate for all topics). * Question about Whereas 3, which references reaching out to GAC. Might be more accurate to reference the GAC Advice. Could also include mention of coordination through the GNSO’s liaison to the GAC. 5. AOB * FYI - GNSO support staff has reached out to SSAC support staff to provide an update on the small team and to note that the SSAC will have an opportunity to provide public comment on the Issue Report. 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<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>