My comments on the Supplemental Proposal Core Proposal, top of page 21; Annex 2, page 13: My recollection was that the threshold reduction was to be allowed only in case (1) and that in case (2), four would still be required (requiring unanimity of the remaining four to remove the Board). I am moderately sure that although (2) was suggested by Becky, it was never agreed to by the Board or the CCWG as a whole. Core proposal, page 30, item 3: Typo - For THE avoidance… Core proposal, page 30, item 3; Annex 5, page 10, item 3: This was supposed to also cover contract renewal where the clauses in question were unchanged from the previous contract. The current wording says until "the expiration date" implying renewals are not covered. Core proposal, page 48: Perhaps nitpicking, but presumably the Bylaw should read "at least 60%" since precisely 60% is not what was envisioned. Annex 04, paragraph 120: I note that the requests from the ALAC to soften the term "ensure" have not been acted upon. No rules can "ensure"- they can only be designed to meet the objective and cannot prevent circumstances that might alter the outcome. The ALAC suggested the wording "SOs, ACs, and the Nominating Committee will develop processes designed to replace Interim Board members within 120 days." Annex 09: There are several references to the RT selection being made by the Chairs of the "participating" SOs and ACs. Two issues: 1) I don't recall any discussion limiting the selectors to other than the full 7 AC/SOs. Presuming a limitation was formally decided upon, where is "participating" defined? Is it the "Decisional Participants" in the empowered community? If so, that defined term should be used. Or some other definition provided. Annex 09, page 5: I have pointed out many times that based on prior review teams, the size of 21 is inflated. There is *NO* justification for claiming it is "based on composition of prior Review Teams". Prior review teams averaged 11.8 AC/SO members and never exceeded 13. ** END OF COMMENTS **