Thank you for this distillation Justine. Very helpful indeed. I agree with and support your advice of no further squabbling re membership and engagement model. Ditto, your recognition of the task for At-Large; shaping the outcomes. What is now required is a settled view of the landing point for At-Large interests. We now need a plenary to determine what that should be. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 at 22:48, Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
I thought I might provide an extracted update on the (impending) output of the GNSO Council GNSO DNS Abuse PDP 1 Charter Review Team.
As at 19 Dec 2025, the draft charter is proposed to be as per in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LianKX5OTgIdecUgPaCTDDqU3o-IvaAoNTFl8M47... where I have extracted the key parts and highlighted the changes in yellow for easier consumption.
In short,
1. The charter questions have been made more high level, less prescriptive to allow the PDP WG some flexibility while still have enough guardrails to keep it tightly focused.
2. The PDP WG model has been revised to "Representative" (instead of "Representative+Open") to keep the WG numbers 'manageable' while still allowing a *handful* more people to participate: - The ALAC now is designated 2 Members, 1 Participant and 1 Alternate (+ infinite number of Observers) - Only Members will be involved in a consensus call; otherwise the Participants can engage as freely as Members - An Alternate can only participate if a Member is not on the call; an Alternate cannot stand in for an absent Participant - Consensus call will be based on participating groups and not number of Members in each participating group - thus, even though RrSG is designated 4 Members because of the argument that 4 would be needed to enable different registrar business models to be heard, RrSG will be considered as ONE group during consensus call.
*Conclusion* It is my considered opinion that we can live with what's being proposed and to not add to any more delay in spinning up the PDP WG. We should just focus our energies on participating in the PDP, to help shape the outcomes we may want. Needless to say, we need to identify suitable persons to fill the 4 seats designated to ALAC while encouraging more to become Observers when the GNSO makes the call for volunteers in Jan 2026.
Kind regards,
*Justine Chew* ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Workspace <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Yj...> ------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.