Dan and Avri's points are both well-made and strong further arguments for supporting decent diversity requirements in decision-making bodies. A further point is that such bodies interact and again we see that same dynamic. For small bodies with tens of members it is hard to get representation of all groups (and of course individual differences between members of groups are as large as the differences between groups on many occasions). So, for groups which are relatively small percentages of the overall population (LGBT, to the best of my knowledge are only a few percentage of the entire population) it is difficult to require a group of only ten to always have one LGBT member. Within the broader set of groups, however, there should be efforts made to ensure that out of the perhaps few hundreds of representatives (and over time, multiples of that) that at least some of these representatives are from these small groups. Again, the local maximum of one committee and one term should be leavened with understanding of the longer term benefits of diversity. Avri's point about how one measures these things applies across all of these broad considerations also provides us with ethical guidance pointing towards requiring best efforts in diversity within groups, across groups and over time, while maintaining open and transparent definitions of "Minimum Competence" required (and providing avenues to gain the necessary competences for those in under-represented groups). ICANN's Fellowship Program is, I think, a good example of an effort to provide better geographic diversity, though there may be room to expand upon it to cover other under- or un-represented minority groups rather than simply developed/developing nation citizenship/residency. -- Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask] Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/