Thanks for this notice Fatima. As we consider this change, I would urge that we look at this in conjunction with the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Report (BGC-NomCoM) that deals with a reformulation of the NomCom. See it here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bwg-nomcom-21aug14-en.pdf In agreeing generally to expand the size of the NomCom, the BGC-NomCom has, among other developments, proposed aligning voting rights to SO/ASO and expanding regional diversity thru added voting rights for the ASO and ccNSO, the Board is proposing as well as increase the voting membership. In context, I think three (3) matters are compelling; 1) the GAC is to have at least (3) voting representatives to NomCom 2) NomCom voting to be organised by delegation or factions 3) Appointments affirmed only with support of at least three (3) delegations or factions. We are at the place where all ACs are not equal. At the moment, GAC advice is the only one for which the Board has a bye-law mandated duty to respond. All others can throw as much as they want over the fence. But there is no duty on the Board to respond, nay, even acknowledge receipt of advice. Much less, if it is even considered. The strategic imperative is not to disqualify but to contain; by making that privilege harder to exercise in transparent practice. On the balance of all these developments, maybe it is appropriate that a higher bar be in place for the Board to heed GAC advice. Conversely, maybe it would also be useful for a higher bar to compel explanation for not heeding GAC advice. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================