Hello There are continuing debates over the allocation of votes across ACs/SOs. What if we momentarily step aside from the title of the proposal -single member- and examine the underlying notions? The idea of a "single member" is a creative idea of LEGAL design of the corporation. Let us step aside from the paper work for a moment. Viewed with understanding, the underlying idea is that of a cross community process. The 20 votes (or 25 or 30) proposal is a positive proposal to bring summary or representative positions from each constituent and further reduce it to a single position. It would work, but there is merit in various concerns expressed about the possible distortions in the use of votes - ALAC wouldn't get the next summit or GDD wouldn't get the next conference, or worse, both would happen by alternative accommodation !! The Community could excessively challenge the Board and Executive with its veto power !!! If these concerns are valid in any degree, then we could find a solution by going beyond 20 or 30 votes on matters of larger significance as well as on matters not resolved by 20 votes. The 20 votes could be deemed a sort of Executive Committee votes, good enough to express trust in, endorse or oppose most Board decisions or Executive actions, but when larger issues are to be decided, whether or not there is a stalemate, it ought to be elevated into a wider cross community process, even allowing ALAC members to vote along GAC positions and vice versa, unlike the party-whip positions as in a Parliament, before being reduced to the position of a single member. The design could be drawn up, or even a foundation laid in this stream to be more expertly shaped during WS2. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>