Hi, Mostly trivial things I noticed. While these come from reading the text, one of the observations points out a wording defect in one of the recommendations (9.3.B). I do not think the recommended fix changes the meeting of the recommendation. It is a good report. Though at times reading things I 'held the pen' for, I wish I had done a better job. avri ~ Page 13 In the course of its deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating Committee (NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations from, did not have (never says from when the recommendations were not taken. Maybe the from is a superfluous word?) ~ page 25 (the 9.3 b issue) In the course of its deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating Committee (NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations from, did not have Yet in recommendation 9.3 B we say administrative function instead of administration or administrative matters. 2 instances page 7 and 59 'administrative function' should be changed to 'administration' ~ page 32 , the idea of "reverse" liaisons from ACs and SOs, as well as a Board liaison to the GAC (nowhere do we define reverse liaisons. perhaps a footnote. I know comments are supposed to include text, but in this case, I don't know how to define it. The closest I can get is "reverse liaison: a liaison from a group with which the GAC does have a By-Laws defined relationship.") ~ page 45 The effectiveness of implementation is qualified, but its partial success is not entirely due to staff performance. . (double period) ~ page 46 During calls72 with ATRT2, (footnote indicator in wrong font) ~ Page 53 in fact ran counter to the concept of accountability.83 [Multistakeholder Model].”84 (footnote indicators in wrong font) ~ Page 60 Report Section 12. Assessment of ATRT2 Recommendation 21 (should that be ATRT1 Recommendation?)