I agree with the idea that we need the most experienced IA's possible on the NAC and on the Executive. When there is a potential for an appeal to the NAC both directors and employees of the CFC need to butt out and avoid fueling any controversy and most importantly not provide any incorrect information to applicants. The handbook is quite out of date in this and other areas and should not be relied upon as many of its provisions were written when no one had email. In this most recent case, I believe that the NAC performed admirably while under time pressure to come to a decision. I'm sure this most recent case will be featured in an upcoming FIDE arbiter magazine.
Vlad, I would tend to disagree with your contention that "we need the most experienced IA's possible on the ... Executive". Obviously that is a useful asset, but it takes other skills beside that one to be good Executive member. Just today you said it yourself, diversity of opinion is important.
I side with Mark and Lyle on this question. I also agree with Les Bunning that the Executive should not have heard this appeal and would like to present a motion for the next VM meeting to clarify that NAC decisions are FINAL.
I nominate Pierre Dénommée for the National appeals Commitee (NAC).
Richard Bérubé