Hi Please find attached our proposal. It is based on a previous EPDP on temp-spec (a very important one with a membership model) which is better than arbitrarily assigning seats and damaging structural parity. In the future PDPs, we would like the seat allocation in membership PDPs be based on council parity. Not how some stakeholders have more constituencies than others. Farzaneh On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:54 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues and Jen,
Thank you for the note and for the effort to identify a way forward. I do, however, need to correct a key premise in how this issue is being framed.
The NCSG is not engaging in seat escalation, nor are we conditioning our participation on what other groups receive. We are not asking for “more” seats, additional influence, or parity as a bargaining outcome. We are asserting — and reclaiming — the equality of representation that already exists between the NCSG and the CSG within the GNSO structure.
This distinction matters. Treating NCSG’s position as part of a generalized numbers-based escalation conflates fundamentally different claims. Some groups may indeed be seeking increased representation relative to others. The NCSG is not. Our position is structural, not comparative: equal stakeholder groups should be represented equally. That principle is already reflected at the Council level and was explicitly recognized in prior PDPs, including the EPDP.
The fact that NCSG is organized differently internally, or does not subdivide into multiple formal constituencies, does not diminish the breadth, legitimacy, or relevance of the interests we represent. Nor does it justify unequal treatment in a closed, membership-based PDP. Equality of representation is not something to be traded off against manageability concerns or reframed as a matter of trust, influence, or process efficiency.
We fully agree that Working Groups must remain functional, manageable, and fit for purpose, and that consensus is not determined by voting or numeric strength. However, those considerations do not provide a basis for revisiting or weakening established structural parity between stakeholder groups. Proposals that separate participation from decision authority, cap representation, or introduce conditional adjustments may be appropriate in other contexts, but they cannot be used to justify unequal treatment between the NCSG and the CSG.
To be clear: the NCSG is not seeking a new model, a special arrangement, or a compromise outcome. We are reaffirming and reclaiming equality of representation as a baseline condition. Any charter proposal that departs from Council-level parity between the NCSG and the CSG would represent a departure from established GNSO council practice and principle.
Accordingly, seat allocation for this PDP should mirror Council parity and allocate the same number of representatives to the NCSG as to the CSG. That equality is not a matter for negotiation within the drafting team.
Best regards,
Farzaneh
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:51 AM Jennifer Chung via gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam <gnso-dnsabuse-smallteam@icann.org> wrote:
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 <https://link-aquamail.dynalinks.app/dl/signature> _______________________________________________ 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.