I have a few comments about the proposed response.

First of all, I believe the note should begin "The ccNSO Council welcomes..." instead of "The ccNSO welcomes...".

About Recommendation 1: The recommendation does not distinguish between two things that are very different: (1) more streamlined policy developing mechanisms, and (2) formal mechanisms to generate non-binding comments and positions. About (2), I think it might be a good idea to make such mechanisms explicit. Today we do this by a variety of means, ranging from an improvised answer to a question from the board during breakfast to a formal resolution of the council. About (1), Chris is right that this is a delicate issue, and we should not tinker with it unnecessarily, but on the other hand I cannot help feeling that something is not right if a PDP for the simplest thing takes years and years. This means that, in practice, if something really important and urgent needs to be done, it has to bypass the PDP mechanism in some other ad-hoc way, like the Fast Track. I would not be against *considering* if the PDP mechanism can be optimized.

About Recommendation 4: "Lastly, the ccNSO’s own research shows that there is a very high opportunity cost associated with attempting to significantly increase membership." Is there a link to this research?

About Recommendation 9: As a long-time council member from a region with a reasonably large number of ccNSO members, I think we could at least have recommended term limits. It is easy to just keep asking the same person to be the representative, but if there is a motivation to look for a different one, usually suitable candidates appear. Personally, I will probably provide such an incentive to my colleagues when my current term ends.

Patricio