Sure. First, one reason that GIC and OIC appointees emerged historically was to ensure that there weren't necessarily entrenched views over time. When we have a three- or five-year appointment, there's a chance to bring in perhaps a new perspective—not just of the political parties, because I don't think that's the aim at all, but of the broader public. The way in which norms change over time can be reflected.
I'm concerned about public appointments coming from the public sector simply because of the chance of there being entrenched views that are not refreshed over time, as you would have with the appointments process.
Another thing I would say is that while certainly the substance of law can be learned, I think there are reasons for having members who have a certain amount of expertise. This might also wax and wane, right? For example, right now there's an incredible backlog. It would be useful to have individuals with a high level of expertise brought in. Maybe at other times, when there's less of a backlog, you could have people who are trainable and who are familiar with legislation more generally. I think OIC and GIC appointments preserve that along with the independence, a broader independence, for the individual.