Dear charter drafting team, I am writing to reflect a concern that has become increasingly clear in our recent discussions regarding Working Group composition for the DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP. It appears that we are now in a position where multiple groups are signalling that their requested level of representation is contingent on what other groups receive (e.g., if one group is allocated six seats, others will also require six or equivalent increases). While these positions are understandable when viewed in isolation, taken together they lead us down a path that is neither workable nor consistent with the objectives of an effective PDP. At some point, continued escalation of seat numbers ceases to be about representation or expertise and instead becomes a proxy for unresolved concerns about trust, impact, and influence. If every adjustment triggers a corresponding demand elsewhere, we risk creating a Working Group that is too large to function effectively, difficult to chair, and ultimately less capable of delivering timely, credible consensus outcomes. It is also important to recall that, under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and the Consensus Playbook, consensus is not determined by voting or by numeric strength alone. Chairs are expected to assess the substance of positions, the degree of support across stakeholder categories, and the presence of reasoned objections. Increasing seat counts does not, in itself, guarantee that concerns will be better addressed. For these reasons, I believe it would be helpful for us to pause the numbers-based escalation and instead re-center the discussion around a small set of shared principles, for example: how to ensure that materially affected parties have their operational and implementation concerns fully heard; how to preserve the visibility and inclusivity of all relevant parties; how to keep the Working Group at a size that remains manageable and fit for purpose; and how to use established tools to address concerns without triggering further seat escalation. Leadership has taken the time to reflect on the discussion and feedback received and provides the group with an elaborate proposal for a way forward that can address most of the concerns and allow for a well-functioning WG and PDP. Please find the proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZvDm7FTl2WcgrPOKGiDTcDcgG0uHp4s/edit There are concrete models, used in other PDPs, that separate participation from decision authority, cap formal representation while allowing additional expertise, or provide time-bound or conditional adjustments tied to workload rather than parity. Exploring such approaches may allow us to meet the underlying needs being expressed without continuing an upward spiral on seat numbers. I would strongly encourage us to focus the next stage of discussion on identifying one of these stabilising approaches, rather than continuing to negotiate purely on headline numbers. Doing so will give us a much better chance of reaching agreement on a charter that is broadly supported and capable of delivering results. Thank you for considering this, and I look forward to continuing the discussion constructively. Best, Jen Sent with Aqua Mail for Android