<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 19px; ">What is the problem of regional representation<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>having</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>one chair and four vice chairs representing four ICANN geographic regions, except the region from which the chair comes from?</span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>From my perspective, having 3 people serve in ICG leadership positions is already 10% of our membership. That is high. These leaders will need to work together, and making that group even bigger will make coordination among them too complex.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's go with the 1+2 proposal. We already have the opportunity for geographic diversity among those three leadership positions -- each of them coming from different continent.</div><div><br></div><div>We need to get a request for proposals out to the communities. I'd like to put this structure discussion behind us and get to the work that our communities selected us to do.</div><div><br></div><div>Russ</div><div><br></div></body></html>