Hi,

On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:30 PM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If they are to act as representatives of 'the GAC', then I would oppose the increase - but it would be my hope that they are instead acting as liaisons to the governments of regions, and trying to communicate the many and varied views of government rather than GAC consensus. If that is indeed their intention - that they are asking for more representation because they intend to liaise in a way that goes beyond normal GAC processes, and directly represents a broad range of govt inputs into the process rather than a single GAC position, which I think would be healthy - then I think asking for 5 is not outrageous.

Hmm…, that would be interesting and would probably warrant additional representation within the coordination group. It would be helpful if the GAC made an indication that this is indeed the intent of adding reps for each region. If they don’t, then there’s no reason to assume that normal GAC processes won’t be followed.

Thanks.

Amr