On 13/09/2014 19:03, Jari Arkko wrote: ... > But maybe I’m the only one getting confused, and if so, that’s fine. I don’t know if we want to make any clarifications (even editorial) in this republication of the BCP, but if I were to write the text from scratch today, I’d say: > > The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all > parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality > rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as > discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should > always be confidential. I'm all for this clarification. I don't believe it's a change in intent, so it's fine as part of a clean-up pass. Maybe s/should/must/ in the last sentence. Brian