Dear DNS Abuse Small Team,
A kind reminder on the below updates and pending action item. Please provide your
comments directly into the documents prior by 30 July.
Kind regards,
Feodora
From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org>
Date: Friday, 25 July 2025 at 15:39
To: "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org>
Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Subject: Update: Draft Documents: 24 July 2025 Meeting Notes
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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
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