Look, I also wanted to believe you. But the 24 hour timeline (for abuse reports from e.g. law enforcement) or “reasonable and prompt” standard (for other reports) is literally from the link you shared initially (sections 3.18.2 and 3.18.1, respectively).

Ctrl-F in your link has no matches for anything related to 30 minutes (the only reference to minutes at all is a 5 minute interval for RDDS probes; all references to 30 apply to days).

The link you posted also references a separate Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/rights-protection-mechanisms-and-dispute-resolution-procedures/urs

Here too we find no faster than a 24-hour turn around to lock a domain (“Review the Rules” section 3.1, following a permitted 2-day administrative review by the URS provider in “Review the Rules” section 3.2).

Since you claim to be in the right document and year, I’d love to know where in your link is support for your 30 minute claim—I appear to be incapable of finding it. If true, it would make for good trivia at parties (though I’d prefer to see the evidence myself before sharing).

Maybe you’ve had specific dealings with a company called OpenProvider? They profess sending emails in response to complaints within 30 minutes and claim domain parking within an hour: https://www.openprovider.com/blog/handling-abuse-at-openprovider

Or maybe you didn’t share the link you meant to share?

For what it’s worth, not calling you a liar or questioning your memory; just observing that you currently have not meaningfully supported a rather surprising claim in the way you evidently intended to support it (and then responded a bit aggressively when (imo, politely) questioned about it).