diff --git a/processes/advisory-council-requirements.md b/processes/advisory-council-requirements.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..31f7e7ca1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/processes/advisory-council-requirements.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Governance Scope Advisory Council Recommendations
+
+The AVCs have already done some work on these. I doubt that I’m providing anything groundbreaking here that the AVCs between them haven’t already covered.
+
+## Scope Requirements
+* Scope Advisory Council Members must have ‘relevant skills for providing professional expert input on the content of the Governance Scope’
+* Scope Advisory Council Members must be paid on a per-project basis.
+* Projects must ‘improve all or specific parts of the Governance Scope.’
+* Work does not need to be compatible with the Scope Artifact format.
+* Must have a ‘high probability of producing clearly measurable value’ in order to receive funding. 
+
+
+## Core Requirements
+EITHER in-depth subject knowledge of the crypto space, the Ethereum blockchain, and MakerDAO AND general familiarity with traditional governance structures, processes, and publications;
+
+OR in-depth subject knowledge of traditional governance structures, processes, and publications AND general familiarity with the Ethereum blockchain and MakerDAO.
+
+It is critically important that candidates both:
+* know when to look for relevant information and;
+* are able to find relevant information;
+…when it relates to both of these two domains (crypto and traditional governance).
+
+
+## Advantageous
+* In-depth knowledge of the crypto space, Ethereum, MakerDAO, and traditional governance literature.
+* Experience or general familiarity with legal contracts in any jurisdiction.
+* Practical experience with process, governance, and structure within an established DAO in the crypto space.
+* General familiarity with programming, code, and smart contracts.
+* Practical experience of project management and delivery.
+* General familiarity with game theory, incentives, and mechanism design.
+* Strong imagination.
+* Understanding of epistemology. 
+* Strong written communication skills.
+* Understanding of the need and benefit of transparency when working in a DAO.
+* Comfortable with public communication around delivered work items.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/processes/arbitration-thoughts.md b/processes/arbitration-thoughts.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0e52844a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/processes/arbitration-thoughts.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Endgame Arbitration Thoughts
+
+## Key Goals
+* Reduce the number of arbitration votes MKR Holders need to participate in.
+* Reduce the number of arbitration votes subDAO token Holders need to participate in.
+* Reduce the workload for facilitators as much as possible.
+* Arbitration should be available to all, despite their financial resources.
+* Transparent in its processes and outcomes.
+* Spam protection to prevent the arbitration system from getting bogged down in petty/spurious complaints.
+
+
+## Arbitration Pairs
+
+When developing the arbitration framework it’s important to try to consider all of the possible participants in advance. It’s hard to say how many of these will be applicable exactly, given the uncertainty around how subDAOs and ecosystem actors will develop. 
+
+**Possible Pairs**
+* Core vs. subDAO
+* Core vs. Ecosystem Actor
+* subDAO A vs. subDAO B
+* subDAO vs. Ecosystem Actor
+* Ecosystem Actor A vs. Ecosystem Actor B
+* subDAO vs External Actor
+* Ecosystem Actor vs External Actor
+
+## Escalation and Appeals
+
+Any arbitration framework should likely involve some sort of system of escalation such that arbitration can take place at various levels depending on the scale of the stakes. The goal here is one of efficiency: to reduce the number of arbitration cases that require intervention from tokenholders. 
+
+Escalation could take place through a system of appeals. In this, it’s important to trade off against two goals:
+
+1. The goal of making arbitration fair and available to all participants.
+2. Protecting the arbitration process from spam. 
+
+Costless appeals will likely lead to spam (well-intentioned or otherwise), whereas costly appeals require a level of capital to be provided by the participants, leading the arbitration process to favor those with more resources.
+
+A hybrid system is possible in which a committee or facilitator can set the cost for appeal more flexibly depending on the relative financial circumstances of the participants, though this does introduce the risk of bias on the part of the deciding party.
+
+
+## Outsourcing
+
+It may be possible to outsource arbitration to preexisting DAOs that provide this service as their primary objective. Such outsourcing has its own advantages and disadvantages.
+
+**Advantages**
+* Potentially more objective
+* May be cheaper than running the process in-house.
+
+**Disadvantages**
+* Less control
+* Less familiarity with Maker
\ No newline at end of file