[Ncsg-discuss] A few council issues for your consideration

[Manju]

oh sorry I must have read you wrong. (I thought you were suggesting to vote
yes)

Yes, 100% support to ask for a deferral. Council don’t necessarily come up
with the charter questions but they definitely need ample time to review
them and get feedback from their SG/Cs.

Seeing also feedback from other SG/Cs feedback on the council list, it’s
important the council have a final look of how they’re incorporated in to
the final version of the charter and again, sufficient time to discuss it
with their respective SG/Cs before rushing to vote.

Best,
Manju

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 11:25 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Manju.
>
> I have to say rushing it like this is worrisome. Not only are they
> suggesting to prioritize a PDP on an issue we withdrew our support from,
> they have also come up with the charters already (and usually the council
> has to come up with a charter if I am not mistaken) This is why I am
> thinking of deferring it or requesting amendments.
> One problem is that this motion arrived in our inbox right on the day they
> released the final issue report. The final issue report has not considered
> many of the issues we raised and that makes it even more problematic
> because that lack of consideration has bled into the charter (and both PDPs
> have their charters ready!). The reliance of the issue report on sparse
> research documents is very worrisome. We mentioned this both during the
> small team at the council and in our comment. But they still did not look
> any further than Netbeacon and Infermal report and this is dangerous. It
> sets a terrible precedent. The UDRP report done by WIPO and ICA
> which recommends a UDRP review and is truly not balanced is going to also
> be used as a justification for a UDRP review scope in the future.
> And the motion includes both charters so we have to approve both at the
> same time so we can't make changes at a later time.
>
> I have now looked at the Associated Domain Check draft charter and I have
> so many comments but I cannot make them since this is a pdf. But from a
> cursory review: there are no questions on how do we create appeals
> mechanisms in case of mistakes, what are the transparency reporting
> requirements (to the public not just to ICANN compliance), how do you
> remedy mistaken mass domain takedown as a result of domain association
> check?
> There is certainly good language there but HRIA is not enough.
>
> So I am thinking we have one of these two ways: 1) defer the vote. It's
> gonna be Christmas holidays half the people are gone nothing is gonna
> happen until our Jan Council meeting. Until then, either work on the
> charters and give comments on the charters, plus try and say we want to
> work on the API first because we don't want to rush the associated domain
> check. 2) ask the leadership clarifying questions and tell them our
> concerns and see if there are solutions. For example, we can say we don't
> want to accept the charter and want the council to review both of them.
> Another is to ask for a rationale why they chose associated domain check
> and ask to change it to API.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 5:22 AM Manju <manju4icann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On issue 2 re. DNS Abuse, sorry to add more work for our councilors, but
>> maybe we can consider a statement while voting yes?
>>
>> I just browsed through the WG charter part of the Final Issue Report real
>> quick. Seems like there won't be a scoping team for this PDP since the
>> charter questions were already included (also you'll already be voting to
>> approve the Charter in the motion). It says the WG will be representation +
>> open model, but didn't specify the representation per SO/AC/SG/Cs. Maybe
>> ask staff to clarify that before voting.
>>
>> Best,
>> Manju
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 5:57 PM Johan Helsingius <
>> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/12/2025 10:44 am, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>>
>>> > Regarding point one, I also agree w/ the suggested approach.
>>>
>>> Likewise.
>>>
>>> > I'm fully aware that our priority was the API access, and that NCSGs
>>> > position was not necessarily "approach it at the appropriate time". I
>>> > was then wondering if we should oppose this motion - based on the lack
>>> > of proper council discussions directed towards prioritization and -
>>> > given the short timeline - suggest that we have an
>>> extraordinary council
>>> > meeting to address this issue ?
>>>
>>> I am sure I am not the only one taken aback by the speed at which they
>>> are pushing this through. This is where on-line meetings fail - it
>>> would be really useful to have some corridor discussions with the
>>> key people.
>>>
>>>         Julf
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251204/645c603e/attachment-0001.htm>