James, I want to point out that the existance and stability of the roles you note has not been unchanged over time -- we began with a PSO Bylaws entity which we no longer have, replaced (poorly, in my opinion) by a technical liaison function, and real confusion over membership, improved (somewhat, again in my opinion) by an At-Large Bylaws entity. I also want to point out that there are issues for which the gNSO and the ccNSO are not, as you seem to suggest, independent, but for which the policy interests of each coincide, e.g., our i18n/l10n choice of mechanism and of local implementation. We have struggled over the years with the problem that the GAC, and also ALAC, have no structural means of participating in policy development (in any of the SOs), and so are constrained to react to policy proposals. Respectfully I suggest that nothing we are considering here "dilutes the meaningful contributions of SOs, and (ultimately) converts every issues into a dialogue between the Board and GAC/Governments". Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon