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

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Agreed, both in principle and in practice,  articulates our position very well.

(In train typing with phone, apologies for brevity and possible typos.)

Tapani

On 19 December 2025 6.35.29 EET, farzaneh badii via NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>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/20251219/c06f8d43/attachment.htm>