On 23-Aug-15 21:35, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > If there is a point that most or all of us agree on – such as the > voting allocations in the CCWG proposal – we will have more impact if > multiple voices are heard making the same point. I want to indicate that, personally, I am not in agreement with the position currently in the NCSG comments. While I would have preferred full parity allocation from each AC/SO, I am willing to accept the allocation in Draft 2. I think it is especially important that the model includes equal footing for ICANN stakeholders, as we have done in CWG and CCWG, be maintained in the SM apportionment. I think it is a mistake to equate the apportionment in the SM with the apportionment of seats on the Board of Directors, as the model suggested in the comments does. For one thing, it ignores the fact that half of the directors are appointed by a Nomcom that represents the wider community's interests. Those interests need to be included in the SM. The issue the SM deals with are not specifically supporting organization issues, they won't be talking about gTLDS. They will concern oversight issues of budget/strategy, changes to the bylaws, and the removal of the Board or of individual Board members. These are issues that require greater diversity among those in discussion. ICANN is made up of two kinds of groups, those who give advice to the Board, which the Board can Accept or Reject, and those who send recommendations to the Board, which the Board can Accept or Reject. It is the full matrix of these 2 groups of organizations that insures we have a full mix of stakeholders. This is something we recognized for both the CWG and CCWG, and it think it is just as relevant in the apportionment of the SM voting table. I will be submitting a comment on this issue. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus