6 Third, the way forward ought to be accomplished through an objective and transparent process to first identify the negotiables in order to then move to intergovernmental negotiations. Fourth, the Open-ended Working Group should carry out consultations on the framework and the modalities for intergovernmental negotiations; Fifth, further steps must contain components and notions that will allow the Membership to reach a general agreement on all aspects of Security Council reform, in particular on both the composition of the Council, and its working methods; Sixth, the reform of the Security Council must accommodate the interests and concerns of all sides, especially those who are currently underrepresented; and, Seventh, Member States should refrain from steps which could serve to undermine the current momentum and consensus to continue a process with the intention of achieving result oriented solutions.” Areas of Contention Size of Expansion 10. While there is general understanding that the Security Council should be enlarged, there is no agreement on the size of the enlargement. The African proposal calls for an expansion to 26 members, while the G4 and UFC favour 25. The P5 are open to modest enlargement to accommodate Africa, apart from the UK which supports 25-26, but with the caveat that the expansion is done on gradual or incremental basis. Some P5 members also have their preferences among countries aspiring for permanent membership of the Council. The S5 have no common position on this aspect of the reform, and some have even expressed pessimism about any meaningful reform taking place in the immediate future. The veto 11. The veto is the most sensitive and contentious issue of the reform. Africa’s position is that it should be abolished, otherwise, so long as it exists, and as a matter of principle and common justice, every permanent member should be entitled to it. While the P5 are generally understood to be opposed to the extension of the veto to new members, some appear to be flexible, as far as Africa in concerned. The S5 and the UFC believe that extending it to new members will amount to reinforcing the undemocratic nature of the Security Council. The G4 are opposed to its extension to new permanent members, until the question has been decided upon in the framework of the review of the mandate. They argue that the most immediate task, that of entering the Council as permanent members, should be accomplished first.