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