Thanks Marika.

All, sorry I will miss the call this Thursday due to travel. One specific issue on sequencing has to do with the possible Issues Report, which sends a signal that a 5-7 year PDP is coming. We don’t want that to cause the community to put their pens down and not engage in all of the non-PDP work that this report recommends (i.e. community outreach and possible contract amendments negotiations). So, I think we should consider sequencing any Issues Report for well after a reasonable amount of time to ensure that the community has additional opportunities to solve the problem themselves.

Best,

Paul

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:07 AM
To: gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam] Proposed agenda and outstanding items

[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]

Dear All,

As discussed during the last meeting, the staff support team has gone ahead and applied most of the proposed edits that were either supported or not objected to. You can review these in redline format in the report (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dDXKtna8jtn7y2TO0mr1P7Fg3Pdj_v4B/edit). For tomorrow’s meeting, we would like to focus on the main outstanding items which according to our review are:

Page 8 – Request for an Issue Report: Should the group work on a draft Issue Report or, as suggested by Mark, “describe what is interesting to have in the report rather than drafting”. If the latter, what would this description look like?
Page 12 – DNS Abuse reporting: As discussed during the last meeting, the staff support team has put forward new draft language to capture the small team’s recommendation in relation to this topic (see section 4). Does this accurately summarize the small team’s discussion to date or are further updates necessary?
RA Spec 11 3(b) – please see email from Justine on this topic (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam/2022-August/000197.html) – should this be further addressed in the report, and if so, where/how?
Page 12-13 – RAA 3.18.1 – note that Greg has suggested alternative language to describe the possible gaps. Are there any concerns about this alternative language?
Page 13 – cooperation with non-ICANN parties (see comment from Thomas) – the staff support team is suggesting that this point could be included as part of the introduction to this section of the report as it seems to apply to other recommendations as well and not only this one. Does that make sense or is there a preference to include it only for this specific recommendation?

If there are further items that need further discussion / review, please flag these in advance of the meeting.

Once the group has resolved these items, there is also a comment that has been flagged by Paul (note that it shows up as ‘anonymous’) to discuss potential sequencing / prioritizing of the recommendations. It may make sense to consider this once the recommendations are in their final form and the small team is able to review if/how these should be sequenced and/or prioritized.

This translates into the following proposed agenda:

Proposed Agenda – DNS Abuse Small Team meeting on Wednesday 31 August at 20.00 UTC:

Welcome
Review and address outstanding items in small team report
Consider possible sequencing / prioritization of recommendations
Confirm next steps & next meeting

Best regards,

Steve & Marika