These are broad concerns addressed to all group members. If co-chairs or others have addressed these Qs in the townhall I unfortunately missed today, happy to look up the transcript 1. How does an opt-in membership model sit with the idea that accountability is asked of the Board as a matter of principle? In other words, members shouldn't have to labour through the debate of whether they want to join in or not, without worrying about the Board's actions. Conversely, if it makes no difference to a community's rights or responsibilities, is opt-in membership being discussed solely as a legal method to circumvent opposition to UA? 2. How does the model address the evolution of the community into new constituencies, or diversity within the existing ones? Keep aside the concern that bylaws would have to be amended for this exercise -to me, the notion that some communities can "opt" to join a certain legal universe strongly discourages others from being part of it or creating new ones. A certain regime is already in place by the time a member of the internet community wants to engage with ICANN, but finds it difficult to navigate the new set of rights and responsibilities that would accrue if the model is in place. Ordinarily you would have to defer to individuals or institutions who "know" the rules of the game, which is how elite capture happens within communities. arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272