Oct. 15, 2021
To Whom It May Concern. While I do understand and appreciate the needs to protect the markets in the "public interest," I do feel that the wording of this proposed rule is awfully vague. Specifically, the wording around the duration, authorization and interpretation of a potential suspension. "No such suspension would continue longer than a period of two days, or as soon thereafter as a quorum of Directors can be assembled, unless the Board approves the continuation of such suspension." Who is left to determine what is in the public interest, and how is public interest being defined? The board has the right to determine what is best for every single investor? This indicates that at the Board's sole discretion, a security could be indefinitely suspended, simply because the board decides its not in the "public interest," which I have already noted is vaguely defined and has no parameters. This gives full autonomy to this board to suspend a security as they please with little/no justification. There is no cap defined for the length of a security suspension. There is also no reasonable time defined for the board to meet - this is troubling to say the least. To recap, this board can decide what the public's interest is, decide how long they'd like to wait to convene, and once they convene, simply decide that they don't want this security to be traded for....however long they want. This does not to me seem like a fair, free and competitive market. This feels like the NYSE can decide to turn off the buy/sell button on securities that they don't feel should be traded as they please. As an individual investor, rules like this make me lose faith in the integrity of the US market, and I strongly advocate for more clarity in this proposed rule, specifically around the duration and definition of "public interest." Thank you, John