Farzi, It's incorrect that only Lawrence objected to NCSG having six reps on the team. In fact, Lawrence proposed a reasonable compromise that you rejected involving NPOC and NCUC. Justine also expressed doubts about this NCSG demand. As you know, I advocate Rep + Open model with restrictions on participation of those who are "open" members to prevent abuse of the deliberations. I certainly do NOT agree with adding more reps to any group's number of reps. Regarding additional registrar expertise, the PDP processes provide mechanisms for the PDP to acquire this expertise and hopefully Sam's document will cover this. There was a fair majority view on Council in favor of the representative model, but there were assumptions underlying that. In my role as Nom Com, non-voting, I would advise the team not to go back to Council with a proposal that significantly changes the balance of the known representative model. The CSG is not a uniform "consensus block" as you allege. Lawrence makes great points regarding diversity of interests even within the BC alone. The best path forward for this group is to stick with the Reps proposed in the chart and rely on customization for expert and community input forthcoming in the draft to be proposed by Sam. Anne P.S. Jen is speaking before the UN General Assembly today on WSIS+20 - GO JEN! Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 11:24 AM farzaneh badii via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Feodora,
Can we please fix that there is significant disagreement on NCSG receiving equal number of seats as CSG. Only Lawrence objected to that and Ashley said in chat she doesn't disagree that NCSG should receive 6 seats (I'd check with Ashley not to misrepresent it) . I also don't have an objection on how CSG wants to allocate their position 2 for each constituency etc but NCSG should not be unfairly underrepresented because it doesn't have equal numbers of constituencies. Our internal governance is our own business. We shouldn't be treated unequally because we run things differently. In the past the work around that we found was to allocate 6 to NCSG, NCUC and NPOC. ( you can be a member of NCSG and not any constituency)
I also urge people to look at the past conversations. This is not a new issue. It's an unfairness that we time and time again have to fix.
I recommend changing significant disagreement: to
To be discussed: should NCSG receive equal number of seats on PDP as CSG (at the moment CSG has 6 seats but NCSG has 2). discussion on allocating seats at the stakeholder level and allow for stakeholder groups to allocate seats internally based on their constituency instead of allocating based on the number of constituency. Also please note that only Lawrence was opposing NCSG having an equal number of seats to that of CSG.
Farzaneh
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 12:35 PM Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org> wrote:
Dear draft charter team,
Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, 19 December at 14:00 UTC.
Kind regards,
Feodora on behalf of the Support Team
*Action Items*
1. Small Team to consult with their respective groups on membership model preference and seat allocation proposal
2. Sam to work on a Google document outlining potential mechanisms (e.g., special sessions, input channels, guardrails) to address openness and community input concerns within a representative model.
3. Staff to provide a starting point on Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVEf7RM9Ejc_6mw8XsMlbUuH-wqQly09bIDPWIhO...> for Sam to develop further.
4. During the next meeting the group is expected to:
i. Decide on the membership model
ii. Progress toward resolving concerns with the seat allocation
iii. Discuss pending comments on the draft charter
*Summary of discussion*
1. Majority support emerged for a representative working group model. Multiple SGs expressed support for a representative model as the most effective structure for this PDP, citing efficiency, continuity, and the need for relevant expertise. 2. ALAC, some NCSG participants, and individual contributors continued to advocate for a representative-plus-open, emphasizing inclusivity. 3. Consensus that expertise and continuity are critical success factors of a good WG model 4. It was reaffirmed that all PDP participation models will allow observers by default, addressing some transparency and newcomer concerns. 5. No agreement on seat allocation; issue remains unresolved
1. Significant disagreement remains regarding:
i. Whether NCSG should receive six seats
ii. Whether existing two-seat-per-constituency allocations should remain unchanged
iii. Whether registrars should receive additional seats due to implementation impact (3 seats)
6. It was clarified that the PDP chair selection is separate from member seat allocation and handled via Council leadership and/or the Standing Selection Committee, not by working group member vote.
*From: *Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, 15 December 2025 at 18:12 *To: *Julie Bisland <julie.bisland@icann.org>, farzaneh badii < farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" < lawrence@microboss.org>, "Mohr, Susan" <Susan.Mohr@lumen.com>, Vivek Goyal <vivekg@ldotr.red>, "compsoftnet@GMAIL.COM" <compsoftnet@GMAIL.COM>, "gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> *Cc: *John Emery <john.emery@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Action Items and high-level notes: DNS Abuse Draft Charter Team / Monday, 15 December 2025 at 13:00 UTC
Dear draft charter team,
Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today`s meeting. Due to the tight deadline of this group we are using the individual Email addresses instead of the distribution list, because not all members have enrolled via ICANN join.
- *Important:* We cannot add you to the small team’s roster or mailing list until we have received your enrollment. In addition, we cannot add you to attendance for today’s call until you have enrolled. If you have not yet enrolled, please enroll immediately (see email from Terri “*Action needed | ICANN Join…*” sent to ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org list); once enrolled, you will be added to the mailing list and member wiki page.
Kind regards,
Feodora on behalf of the Support Team
==========
*DNS Abuse PDP1 Draft Charter Team - Meeting 15 December*
*Action Items*
- *Staff* to circulate a redlined version <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LKQqjuSY-puI8cTfaAktad60IimVkuHSmBikC2P6...> of the charter reflecting discussion points. - *Councilors* to Review the updated charter questions and redlines. Provide specific proposed text and rationale for any suggested changes, particularly where concerns exist about scope, safeguards, or impacts. - to clarify that triggers are tied to DNS abuse cases, without embedding PDP answers in the question text. - to Address potential overlap between questions on association criteria and investigation steps, including possible consolidation. - Ensure questions on data access and privacy safeguards explicitly consider impacts on registrants and end users, and potential remedies. - *Councilors *to prepare to discuss the WG model during the next call. - *Deadline* for final input Friday 19 December.
*Discussion on Charter*
· The charter must be fit for purpose and finalized before the PDP on Associated Domain Checks can convene.
· The charter must not pre-empt or perform the work of the PDP; it should only define the framework and questions for the PDP to answer.
· The charter questions should:
o Focus on what the PDP should examine, not how registrars must operationalize outcomes.
o Avoid being overly prescriptive or revealing investigative methods that could be exploited by bad actors.
o Several questions were identified as potentially overlapping (notably those on defining associations and investigation steps), and there was agreement to review consolidation or re-ordering.
*Human rights considerations*
· The GPI framework and Human Rights Impact Assessment are mandatory PDP requirements and are reflected in the charter.
· There was agreement that repeating human rights language throughout every question is unnecessary and risks cluttering the charter.
· Instead, participants agreed it is preferable to:
o Capture these considerations once, clearly, in an overarching section (e.g., a chapeau, scope, or dedicated section), and
o Avoid duplicating the same language in every charter question.
o Where core values or standards are referenced, the preference is to link to authoritative sources rather than restating or partially listing them.
*Registrar business models*
· There was agreement that the PDP/Charter must take into account different registrar business models.
· Similar to human rights considerations, participants agreed this should be stated once at a high level, rather than added to each individual question.
_______________________________________________ gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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.