Here are the current Board comments on Recommendation 11 (GAC Advice): The Board provides the following comments on Recommendation #11: 1. The Board supports the consensus text included in the Third Draft proposal on the acceptance of GAC advice. 2. The Board understands that this recommendation was not intended to impose any new requirements for the Board to take decisions on GAC advice, and that this issue can be addressed in the Bylaws drafting notes by indicating that the Board should not be obligated to act on all GAC advice through a vote. 3. The Board supports that ACs should be required to provide rationale to accompany advice. The Board understands the CCWG recommendation to place an obligation on the Board, when taking a decision on a piece of advice, to consider whether the Board found the rationale sufficient. The Board would always be in a position to indicate if additional information is needed prior to completing consideration of any piece of advice. The Board does not consider this recommendation to impose a requirement that the Board must provide a specific determination for each piece of advice received regarding whether the Board felt the rationale was sufficient, and urges the CCWG to clarify for Bylaws drafting that the Board is not required to make a determination on whether every piece of formal advice has adequate rationale. 4. The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s clarification that, if the Board takes action inconsistent with the Bylaws – even if that action is based upon following the advice of an AC – the Board can be subject to an IRP. To the extent that the CCWG believes that it is important to specifically identify this in the Bylaws, the text used should apply to all Advisory Committees, and not solely refer to the GAC. Cheers, Chris