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

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Dear Farz,
Thank you for shedding more light on this issue. It is very helpful, and I
have no objections.  I just saw the email after responding.  I am
struggling with council emails as they end up in my spam folder.

Kind regards,
Benjamin


On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 8:44 AM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20251204/5d780481/attachment-0001.htm>