Carlos, I think we both have made our points clear, but the reason why I am replying further to your message is only because I see a very dangerous continuation in the path of changing the rules while the train is running, or to invent rules that do not exist. Please note the change of subject line. You wrote: Second, When the people express their own feelings or opinions (like Evan case), NEVER could be treated as a discriminator apriori, except when their words had given this meaning. We can think in different way. Absolutely agree. Sorry if I have given the impression that I was replying to Evan, this is not the case. I think that it is absolutely legitimate to express opinions, or to expose a case for one or the other candidate, or on the desired profile of the ideal candidate. I used the word "discrimination" (in inverted commas) relating to a different post, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Back to the point, if I can make an example (and please take it only as an abstract example), some might think that the best Chairman should be mother tongue English, because "it will be best for ALAC", some others might think that the best Chairman should *not* be mother tongue English, again because "it will be best for ALAC". This is not discrimination, it is the expression of an opinion. And this is what Evan has done, and I respect that. However, if somebody comes forward to state that a native (or alternatively a non-native) English speaker cannot be Chairman of ALAC, we are IMHO in a different realm. And looking at your sentece below: The elected persons by NomCom are very special and important, big skills and capables, "but in some cases" they not fullfil the necessaries conditions to be elected like ALAC member, according bylaws. I think Nom Com had in account the personel bios and conditions but never seen (in my opinion) the bylaws of ALAC (I repeat, in some cases). my understanding is that, even with the caveat that you refer to "some cases", the implication is that NomCom-selected members are of a separate kind (and if the words have a meaning, your sentence above implies "inferior"). But on the other hand ALAC's statutory documents say that they are equal: and this is exactly my understanding of the word "discrimination". Last but not least, you wrote: I consider, also, the ALAC bylaws must be changed, specialy after RALOs, this is not the first time that I say. You might be surprised, but I think exactly the same, the composition of ALAC should be revised as RALOs become operational. But I also believe that until this revision is done (it could come as part of the mandated reviews of ALAC and NomCom) the rules of the game should stay put. What is the point of having spent a huge amount of time to spell out bylaws and other statutory documents if now we are disregarding clauses in them? Personally, I believe that the process of giving more "power" to the RALO-appointed members will come up in a natural way if RALOs will concentrate on policy making. In performing activities in the RALOs, by representatives of the ALSes, there will be a quite natural process of RALO members taking leadership, and therefore become in quite a natural way the preferred leaders of the community. But the assumption underlying this is that the RALOs will turn now their attention away from structural issues, and into policy making. I could say a lot of things more, as a Lawyer, but It seems to me, we are not talking about law here, I think is only about common sense and Intellectual honestity about meanings of concepts or words. I respect your opinions, because, as I said, we can have different opinions. Similarly, I respect your opinions, regardless the differences. But I would also hope that we can have some sort of consensus, for instance on the priorities for ALAC. Cheers, Roberto