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

• Pull in Farzaneh and NCSG comments into the worksheet
• Add the gap to the list (informing a complainant of the outcome of the investigation)
• Small team members to review gap report preliminary recommendations document by Thursday, 10 July
• Distribute Doodle poll to reschedule Thurs call

Welcome

• None

Discuss List of Gaps – New Feedback

• Reviewing G1
  • Here and in general, the At-Large focused on identifying topics that they believe are high priority. Confirmed that the At-Large focused on determining which issues should be investigated.
  • Retail registrars will have visibility, but resellers might not.
  • An associated domain check must be done with care. There is the possibility of profiling, infringement of privacy.
  • Important considerations that will be relevant to deliberations, not necessarily the time to go into details now. The framing of this topic might be too prescriptive. Agreement that it’s hard to refrain from discussing merits of the issues and trying to develop solutions.
  • Clear interest in including this topic for policy development.

Action Item: Pull in Farzaneh and NCSG comments into the worksheet

• Reviewing G10
  • Data feeds need to be considered with a grain of salt.
• Reviewing G17 and G27
  • The RySG doesn’t see this topic as a subject for policy development, but the At-Large sees it a high priority item. The most important element/gap is informing a complainant of the outcome of the investigation.
  • The CSG also noted the gap. Not seeking to be prescriptive about whether this topic would warrant policy development.
  • Important to coordinate both the submission of complaints as well as the point raised by the At-Large.
  • However, if the Ry/Rrs are not compelled to provide a response, would they still do it? Policy development could ensure that this is a baseline requirement, for both the collection and resolution of complaints.
  • There are already requirements for Ry/Rrs to have a mechanism to accept complaints. However, there seems to be a lack of education for reporters, which may not warrant policy development.

Action Item: Add the gap to the list (informing a complainant of the outcome of the investigation).

• Reviewing G19 and G24 – no comments
• Reviewing G31, G4, and G13
  • In respect of G4, RySG had already identified as a gap. Believe it warrants additional work.
  • NCSG also believes that this is a high-priority. Concern about attributing the identification of the issue to only NetBeacon WP.
• Reviewing G13
  • Divergence about whether this topic warrants policy development. CSG believes it is important to close the loop, accepting that cases can be so different.
  • A path could be to increase the baseline of actions warranted, but dictating timeframes can be problematic.
  • Clarification that the SLAs could be for specific types of abuse, not all types.
  • Clarification that the 24 hr response time is for LEA
• Reviewing G15 and G20
  • At-Large did not seek to determine the path to resolve gaps. It may indeed be the case that this gap would not warrant policy development.
• Reviewing G29 - none
• Reviewing G2, G9, G12, and G25
  • G9 and G12 do seem like a gap, it seems like a compliance issue.
  • Suggestion to combine G2 and G1
  • Concerns about the obligations of resellers.
  • NCSG does not believe G12 is a gap.
• Reviewing G6, G7, and G21
  • NCSG does not think pricing should even be in consideration as a best practice
  • Bylaws prevent policy development about pricing.
  • Suggestion that the Issue Report will help clarify what is and is not appropriate for policy development. Therefore, it might actually be helpful to include.
  • General question about how Bylaws changes can be effectuated.
• Clash with Council call. Need to consider rescheduling if we want to review line by line.
• Reminder of focus – the small team’s report should highlight what should and should not be included in the Issue Report.

Discuss Preliminary Recommendations Document

• Consider adding a note that in respect of certain issues, a PDP might not be the only or best outcome.
• In respect of the PDP itself, wariness of parallel processes.
• Need to clarify language about recommendation for PDP

Action Item: Small team members to review gap report preliminary recommendations document by Thursday, 10 July

Action Item: Distribute Doodle poll to reschedule Thurs call

Prioritization Discussion from Preliminary Recommendations Document

• None

AOB

• None

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