Dear Leon, Mathieu, and Thomas: In response to your request for participant feedback on the draft bylaws I would like to mention two items: First, about the IRP (Section 4.3). The draft bylaws give the IRP panel the right to change rules of procedure (Section 4.3.(n)(ii)). In this respect the panel seems unconstrained, only having to publish revisions and possibly to get a consensus (not clear of whom - the COs, the EC, the panel, other?). As I recall, the final proposal did not give the panel this right. It seems to me that the community and Board need to retain some oversight here. Annex 07, paragraph 63, indicates that rules of procedure are to be created by the community and approved by the Board. It is true that Annex 07, paragraph 55 says that, "Panel decisions would be determined by a simple majority. Alternatively, this could be included in the category of procedures that the IRP Panel itself should be empowered to set." But this indirect reference to setting rules does not appear to justify displacing the community-development and Board-approval rights when it comes to rules of procedure. And second, about human rights, specifically an implication in Article 27.3.(c) that HR claims might be a proper subject for RR or IRP after the FOI is developed. This implication is not in the Annex 06 bylaw text (paragraph 23), although it appears in explanatory text (paragraph 19). But both bylaw text and explanatory text say that acceptance of the FOI will depend on the same processes followed in WS1, and bylaw text makes clear that the FOI has to be approved by the Board after it follows the same process and criteria it used in WS1. In my opinion it is a mistake to insert this implication in "real" bylaws as the issue is important as well as complex and the WS2 FOI group should have a chance to debate the merits. Thank you, David McAuley