Thaks Farzi
I think this is a discussion that may be more productive if held in person, so we will look to find some time in our ICANN 85 schedule. I will reiterate, though, that there
can always be situations where one or more groups can justify having a higher representation than others, depending on the nature of the PDP. I believe that there will always be a need for some discussion, on a case by case basis, for what is the appropriate
working group structure and what is the appropriate representation level, where a representative model is selected.
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
Sent: 06 February 2026 18:56
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>
Cc: Council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] NCSG and Parity on Closed Membership PDPs
Hi Susan,
The reason I would like to discuss this topic is to avoid conflicts in the future. The issue
is about fixing a structural unfairness that forces us into repeated allocation battles. I hope it doesn't happen in the DNS abuse PDP2 charter again. As you recall,
we've had multiple disputes over PDP membership numbers and asking for parity between CSG and NCSG, with
others repeatedly challenging NCSG's allocated seats or NCSG being allocated fewer seats than of CSG and have to fight for parity.
We believe NCSG deserves the same number of representatives on every PDP as CSG—something that
has been a topic of dispute . There's a reason Council membership itself maintains parity between CSG and NCSG: it reflects the fundamental balance required in the multi-stakeholder model. That same principle should extend to PDP working groups.
We're not asking for CSG to receive fewer slots; we're asking for equal allocation, whatever that number might be. In other governance lands, it is very natural for noncommercials NGOs
etc to receive an equal number of slots to that of businesses. It's becoming a governance principle even!
What I'm proposing is that we establish this structural parity principle in our chartering guidelines to prevent these recurring conflicts. We
can also limit it to NCPH. There is no justification for CSG to receive more slots than NCSG. I had initially requested ten minutes during a Council meeting to explain this situation, in part because not all Council members consistently follow
mailing list discussions and may not be aware these allocation disputes keep happening. I'd still welcome the opportunity to discuss with fellow Councilors how we can build this fairness into our processes rather than relitigating it each time we charter a
PDP. If not for the next meeting, could we add this to
one of the future Council meetings
agenda? But please others do weigh in if you have questions or need more context.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 12:22 PM Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> wrote:
Hi Farzi
Thanks for flagging this. While not intending to cut off any discussion of this on the list amongst Councillors, I’ll just note that we don’t currently have anything that we need to charter (beyond the Abuse PDP2 in due course), but we can take this on board for the next time we are chartering. There can always be situations where one or more groups can justify having a higher representation, however, depending on the nature of the PDP – as was the case for the RrSG on the Abuse PDP1.
From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: 05 February 2026 14:23
To: Council@icann.org
Subject: [council] NCSG and Parity on Closed Membership PDPs
Hello,
I've tried to get NCSG parity on closed PDP membership on the Council agenda, but haven't succeeded yet, so I'm raising it here.
We want to discuss NCSG parity on PDP membership with the Council. This is a Council matter because the Council determines membership in closed working groups. We've had to relitigate this issue multiple times—goes back to a decade ago and again with ADC PDP—because there's no standing instruction to staff that the allocation of members to the closed groups should follow Council structure in terms of numbers of reps (at least for NCPH). This wastes Council time and creates unnecessary friction. We suggest the Council instruct staff that membership allocation in closed PDPs mirrors the Council's own structure, giving CSG and NCSG the same number of representatives. This would prevent us from having to revisit the same question with every charter and reflects basic structural fairness. Since the Council is in charge of chartering and membership allocation in closed group membership, it should establish parity as the default standard and resolve this once and for all.
Thank you
Farzaneh
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com