Counsel provided the following feedback on Annex 9: *Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)*: *We recommend that consideration be given to further clarifying the Review Team provision in Paragraph 54** (1) to specify the type of “diversity” desired (geographic or otherwise) for Review Team members and (2) to state whether, in determining the composition of the members of the Review Teams they select, the group of chairs can solicit additional nominees or appoint less than 21 members to avoid potential overrepresentation of particular ACs or SOs if some nominate less than 3 members.* Diversity is desirable and should be encouraged, in various ways. However, on the se second point above, I think the suggestions go further and in different directions than I believe appropriate. Diversity is a goal, not a requirement. Soliciting members from underrepresented demographics is not troubling; indeed, participation should be encouraged across the board. However, the idea of not seating a full review team because of lack of enthusiasm from particular demographics is troubling, for a few reasons. First, the teams are purposely fairly small and smaller teams would make it harder to get the work done. Second, some topics may naturally inspire more interest from some demographics than others. Third, some topics may actually be appropriate for an imbalanced representation. I also think the application of "diversity" to the distribution of SOs and ACs ona review team is misplaced. Indeed it runs counter to the concept that unfilled seats of one SO/AC (to the extent there are even formal 'seats') can be reallocated to another SO/AC with more applicants for the review team. This should be clarified,as an acceptable and appropriate action, rather than made to seem undesirable in the name of "diversity." Greg