I'm going to try to provide some clear answers to two of your questions.
First, I'll address the reason why the names are submitted to the minister in alphabetical order, not on the basis of the individual merit of each of the candidates. I believe in the way things are operating now. I believe that the minister must have the necessary flexibility to appoint Board members whom he chooses from a certain number of qualified persons, whether it be for political reasons, regional or other reasons. I think that's normal. What is important for me is that the minister stick to those persons whose names appear on the list. Ministers have always done that. We had even thought about changing that and using the method for appointing judges whereby candidates are submitted as highly qualified or only qualified. I prefer that we don't do that. If I consider that the person meets the basic requirements, I consider it normal that the political person have the flexibility to choose names from the list as that person considers necessary.
Second, you mentioned the question of qualifications. We've definitely noted that the newcomers, those appointed in the past two years, needed less training before being able to work independently. That's one aspect. The second aspect that I observed is the quality of the candidates, of the individuals who, in the past, under the former system, did not believe they could be selected. We're now attracting greater talents, qualified people who can work and become independent decision-makers sooner than in the past.