Hi, Adma's note seems to be reasonable. 5/30 is way down from half, their normal portion of Ig seats, and if that will allow them to accept and support the transition process, I do not see it as harm. I hope the CG remains a non-voting group. But even if they don't, it is not a controlling vote. As for scope, I think it should remain broad enough to cover all of the IANA transition related issues that have been discussed in the lead up to seating the CG. For example, I think the scope has to include the discussion of how the links to the transparency process are set? What are the milestone dependencies? And I think it needs to include the question of whether all the accountability in the world by ICANN can replace the explicit oversight of an authority that can grant/deny a contract or contract renewal. And if not, then what would be the appropriate equivalent mechanism post transition. avri On 12-Jul-14 17:40, Carlos Raúl G. wrote: > +1 > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8335 2487 > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 12/07/2014, a las 14:40, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió: > >> Five. >> >> Multistakeholder: five from 20 plus. Obvious, no? >> >> And if that doesn't make sense, then it's also politically expedient, >> two not workable for govt. We want this process to work give them what >> they ask. (Less than 20%, so really doesn't matter.) >> >> Adam >> >>