You wrote:
> It seems to me that there are at least three reasons for having a Names
> Council composed of more than one representative from each constituency.
>
> First is to distribute power. No matter how narrowly we conceive the role
> of the Names Council, even the power to set an agenda, draft meeting
> minutes, coordinate consensus and report to the ICANN Board is power.
> This is especially true in a new organization, where there is uncertain
> leadership and no clear patterns or precedents for decision-making. More
> participants on the NC dillutes the power of any one person to control
> the process.
>
> Second is trust. One of the key themes running through the ICANN
> Cambridge meeting was whether we trusted this board. While there were
> additional reasons that this was a concern with the ICANN board, it is a
> concern with *any* new organization. How can a new group of people who
> are unfamiliar with each other, who may be competitors in their various
> markets, and who have never worked together before trust one another
> enough to elect just *one* of them to a position of power? Over time,
> this trust will develop, but at this juncture, it is unrealistic to ask
> any constituency to place its trust in one person.
>
> Third is diversity. We are trying to represent diverse interests from
> disparate parts of the world. More NC reps will not guarantee that a
> diverse group is elected, but it should help.
>
> * * * * *
>
> The trade off is that too many NC reps will create a body that is so
> large that it cannot effectively perform its functions (whatever we
> conceive those functions to be). A smaller group would likely act faster
> and reach consensus quicker. (But I'm not sure that's a good thing at
> this stage.)
>
> Weighing the various factors, I would support a larger NC.
>
I understand your reasonmennt, but "large" and "small" are absttract and
relative concepts.
In practice, what is your favourite size? In Monterrey we were oriented on
around 20. Is this too large / too small?
Roberto