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

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Hi Farz,
Thank you for the update on the council issues for our consideration.

I support the direction on item 1 regarding the RDRS recommendations.

On the second issue, I also agree with voting yes to the two PDP tracks
that are not running in parallel. However, Manju has raised a valid point
about clarifying the representation per SO/AC/SG/Cs before voting.  Thank
you, Bruna, for highlighting the expectations.
I am also concerned about the unrestricted API access use and the
challenges it can create for new registrants.
Do we have time to write a statement in addition to the recommendation,
asking staff to clarify this before voting 'Yes'?

Another issue that is often overlooked is the time frame for the PDPs,
which I think we should also seek clarification on.

Great job, Farzaneh.

Kind regards,
Benjamin


On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 12:22 PM 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/20251204/7723bdfb/attachment.htm>