[NCSG-PC] NCSG and representation on DNS Abuse PDP

[farzaneh badii]

Dear PC,

Unfortunately, this issue has resurfaced, with the CSG again arguing that
it should be allocated more  slots than NCSG for the DNS Abuse PDP. From
our perspective, the core principle remains structural parity. The number
of constituencies within a stakeholder group should not, on its own,
determine representation. Despite ongoing discussions, we have not seen
movement on this point.

Jen recently circulated a proposal that, as drafted, would allocate four
seats to NCSG while allocating six to CSG. That outcome is difficult for us
to accept.

In response, I have drafted an alternative compromise that would result in
equal slots across the two groups. While it is not ideal, it reflects a
good-faith effort to move the conversation forward. The draft is attached.
But we will not have a conversation about this in the future. allocation of
seats has to happen based on GNSO council stakeholder division.

We plan to present this proposal to the drafting team tomorrow to gauge
reactions. At the same time, we want to be clear that equitable
representation is a foundational issue for us and not something we can set
aside.


Best regards


Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20251218/8ca80ace/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PDF-NCSG_Seat_Allocation_EPDP_Compromise.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 63553 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20251218/8ca80ace/attachment-0001.pdf>