Dear Steve, Yesterday in my message to one of the colleagues, I referred to as not only a highly reputable, experienced and highly qualified technical and administrative personality but also as a highly qualified Diplomat. I am very much delighted and appreciative for the Wise Advice that you have provided even though some of us were referring to the Board with some strong words. Your reconciliatory approach to calmly, smoothly and patiently as well as correctly address the critical issue before us is highly appreciated. I believe we should not focus on GAC situation rather on principle, fairness, and wisdom. Some of us may be emotional at this stage, some others may be frustrated and some angry. None of these feelings would contribute to the satisfactory resolution of case. *Some of our CCWG quoted from Annexes 1& 2 the following:* Quote *"If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”* Unquote Yes but this does not apply to the spill of the Board. Imagine a case that only 3 SO/AC invoke the Board Spill ,are we saying that according the above general text which was *added in harsh to cover other case than Board SPILL,ACCORDING TO THE ADJUSTMENT RULE TWO SO/AC are sufficient to Spill the Board.* *It is totally unrealistic that in an organization with SO//AC two communities would be able to do so which could invoolve some sort of destabilization of the entire ICANN.* *Consequently in the two annex we must add the following:* *Except for the case of Board recall, **"If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. *Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.” This is important to be also discussed on Tuesday 23 Feb. Call Kavouss