All, there seems to be some confusion around the community power to recall the entire Board and the thresholds required therefore. We would like to summarize the current situation as follows: 1. The compromise and consensus language on what we call the "GAC carve out" stands. 2. Concerns were raised and shared by some with respect to a consequence of this "GAC carve out" in cases, where a Board decision based on GAC advice is used as the reason for a Board recall. This led to an agreement during our call, which was confirmed on the list, that clarifying language is needed to address the concern. 3. In the report, which is going to be published in the next few hours, you will find exactly that. There is no intention to go beyond what has been suggested/supported by, amongst others, Becky, Ed, Robin, Greg and Paul. You will see the concrete language shortly. I have added Becky's note below for your reference. We do hope this helps. Best, Thomas Brett, My support for the Board's approach would be limited to cases where the community seeks to recall the Board because its implementation of GAC Advice violates the Bylaws or Articles. In that case, I think that an IRP is the most appropriate, least disruptive approach. I can live with the notion that the community would respect the final determination of an IRP in such cases - and isn't that what it means for the IRP to be binding? If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then, in my view, the lower threshold should apply and there should be no obligation to file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on standing grounds). Bruce - I think we need clarification from you as to the Board's intent. One could read your proposal as an attempt to limit any use of the spill the Board power in response to the Board's implementation to GAC Advice to situations where that implementation amounts to a violation of the Bylaws/Articles. This reading would - at least theoretically - materially narrow the spill the board power. So I think Brett is right on the principle. But I also think the read I've proposed doesn't really undermine the Board's goal either, inasmuch as I believe that the community will be rightly reluctant to spill the Board in response to an action/inaction that is not alleged to violate the Bylaws/Articles. I suspect there are some details to be worked out on how you resolve a dispute between the Board and the community on whether a spill the Board effort is based on an action/inaction that can be reviewed under the IRP, but I don't think they are insurmountable. Becky