Thanks Avri,
From my perspective, you raise an important additional / related point here on parity.
To the extent that the GNSO "gets" its 4 or more participants, what does this mean for the other SO & ACs? Also, if any issue in the group goes beyond discussion and is taken to a vote, how many votes per SO / AC? Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 25 May 2014 16:35 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Hi, I understand why many think that we need 4 reps, and that seems like it should be easy to agree with. My thoughts go to parity. Are we also arguing that all other groups should have 4 (numerical parity), or are we saying each according to their needs (some sort of social/organizational parity). For example, do we support that At-Large, which is organized around regions, should get 5. Needs based parity is ok with me, I just want to be clear. I also am concerned that we seem to believe that it is impossible for each house to find someone who can neutrally and equitably represent the interests, needs and viewpoints of both sides of a house. Though this is perhaps more a question for the GNSO review. avri