Dear all, I want to be very clear about the NCSG position regarding seat allocation for this PDP. Equal seat allocation between the NCSG and the CSG is not a matter for debate within the drafting team, nor is it a question to be resolved through discussions. Structural parity between the two stakeholder groups is already established within the GNSO framework and we will not undo structural parity through discussions here. The fact that the NCSG operates with a different internal model, and does not subdivide into as many constituencies as the CSG, does not justify unequal representation. NCSG represents a broad and diverse set of non-commercial interests, and its legitimacy and weight are not contingent on the number of formal constituencies it maintains. To be clear, the NCSG is not requesting additional seats, nor are we proposing a reduction in seats for others. We are therefore reaffirming and asserting the equality of representation that already exists between the NCSG and the CSG within the GNSO structure. That equality should be reflected in this PDP in the same way it is reflected at the Council level: equal representation for the NCSG and the CSG. Individual, constituencies and stakeholder views about whether such equality is desirable do not alter the existing structural framework, nor should they affect seat allocation decisions. This is not a matter of compromise for us. Equality of representation is a foundational element of the GNSO structure, and it should not be weakened or re-negotiated in the context of PDP charters. Accordingly, seat allocation for this PDP should mirror Council seat parity and allocate the same number of representatives to the NCSG as to the CSG. Best regards, Farzaneh