The biggest flaw in the draft is that it does not adequately reflect the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. How one considers the consequences of the accident and what lessons to draw from it will vary considerably depending on the interests in which he or she is placed. However, if the role of the ICRP is to formulate basic framework for how radiation protection should be as recommendations based on scientific evidence, it is difficult to understand that there is no proper reference to, for example, NAIIC iThe Official Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, National Diet of Japan, Tokyo, 2012j. When we see the findings and interpretations of the various facts stated in the various authoritative reports, it is important to how we evaluate and summarize them. If ICRP does not give the basis for which of them are adopted and which of them are not, ICRP may be considered to make unscientific and arbitrary judgments. I think references and citations of literature should be as rigorous as regular peer-reviewed scientific articles. The most important lesson from the accident is an analysis of what has succeeded or failed in the Japanese government's policy response to the accident in terms of radiation protection. How did the Japanese government try to apply the ICRP's recommendations in its response to the accident, or did it not? How did the application work in terms of radiation protection? The ICRP must answer those questions by itself. It is considered that ICRP only provides a basic framework for radiation protection, and how to apply it in the event of an actual accident is left to each government. I think it is certainly true, but that does not justify avoiding doing such an analysis. Otherwise, the effectiveness that would naturally be required by revising previous recommendations is not guaranteed. I believe that the ICRP will be able to formulate more effective recommendations by examining and evaluating the various views of various stakeholders who have disagreed with each other but have built their views on the basis of scientifically sound evidence.