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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/iQCi...> 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<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...>