Hi, My gut instinct and philosophical view would lead me to agree with those not inclined to give the GAC additional representation. Realpolitik, though, may lead me in another direction. I think Bill has voiced a nuanced and important consideration: the key here is not whether GAC will overly influence discussion within the CG as a result of the expansion, they still would only have about 17% of the CG, it is whether including more members will increase buy in at the other end of the process. Do we have any idea whom the additional representatives would be? If unexpectedly the additional representation would include countries like Russia and China, or other influential countries that supported the final WCIT agreement, it might be a good idea to expand the CG so they would have some ownership in the final deliverable. If, however, expansion would mean the US, Chile, Australia and Switzerland join Ms. Dryden on the CG it makes no sense. As the GAC is asking for an exception to the status quo I’d suggest at least informally you should be informed of the identity of the proposed additions and act accordingly. Thanks for doing this Milton. Although it’s currently rainy and cool here in Ireland, a country without any representation on the GAC or within ALAC, we’re expecting a heat wave midweek that I’m sure includes the Queen’s territory. Be sure to pack accordingly - nothing worse than being overdressed on a non-airconditioned Tube train on a warm summer day. -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:45:59 +0000 Subject: IANA transition coordination group: some requests for feedback The coordination group will meet in London next week for its first f2f meeting. We've also had an initial conference call. I want to solicit your opinion on two immediate issues we will face. 1. GAC representation. Governments have been allotted 2 seats on the coordination group (CG). They want 5, one for each world region. ICANN has indicated that it will follow the CG's lead on whether to add additional seats or keep it at two. I have an opinion on this, but want to see what others think. My opinion is that the GAC should not be allowed to add more members; the basic fallacy they are making is to see the CG as a voting body rather than seeing its members as liaisons to the specific communities represented. 2 seats allows them to keep tabs on what the CG is doing and carry that info back to the GAC and the GAC's reaction back to the CG. With 5 seats you are not only inflating the size of an already large committee but inflating the representation of a stakeholder group that, according to the NTIA mandate, is not supposed to play a controlling role in the outcome. Other perspectives welcome. 2. Transition scope and expectations about work in the communities. Our working agenda says: "It would be good to clarify the CG's understanding of the scope of the work of the transition, what the community processes need to produce, and where/how areas of overlap will be handled." Advice on how we want this scope issue to be handled is welcome. We obviously want to avoid making "scope" a code word for eliminating certain outcomes or end states that certain forces don't want to happen.