I do not even know what the question is. He has made the rhetorical statement, unsubstantiated, I spoke about it earlier. There is no requirement at this time, the rules are clear. Unless there is a requirement that the Committee chairs, and there is a collective vote for requirement, we are on the singular need to pontificate, then I am prepared to re-examine it. But unless somebody can bring forward significant evidence to prove that the system we have in place is inadequate, why
would I go re-examine a policy that is in place, and it is sound.