Indeed an interesting document..., the following words can immediately be carved in marble "In our experience, effective Boards make most of their decisions through a consensus-building process, rather than the mechanism of a formal vote. If the ALAC Board Liaison had a right to vote, this might lead to a reduction in consensus-building in favour of a more confrontational, majority-seeking approach." There are six out of fifteen board voting members from Adress, Generic and Country-Code Names Supporting Organizations each having two votes. Does this mean that At-Large supposed to represent wide user community could be considered more confrontational than three tiny, more or less closed societies existing solely within the ICANN structure? And who could be seeking a majority approach if not a body that is inherently established and developed for the purpose of advocating the interests of the vast majority of internet users in a transparent manner? Registries or registrars? Or other appointees nominated by another opaque body such as NomComm? In fact, all, or almost all board positions should be nominated by At-Large community ensuring the directors stay accountable and under continual control of the community they have risen from. A ridiculous, upside down logic. I would personally recommend that At-Large refuse the draft document as a whole due to a false logic it is based upon. Dominik