Hello All, As noted last week, the Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015. The Board is preparing for the Public Comment period on the Third Draft Proposal, and intends to submit its comments on the Third Draft Proposal by mid-December. The Board thought it may be useful to share some initial comments based on the information in the CCWG Update. For ease of reference, the page number in the Update Document has been included for each item below. . Human Rights (pages 25-26) The Board is committed to upholding human rights as appropriate within its limited Mission and scope of responsibilities. We appreciate the community's interest in reflecting human rights in the ICANN Bylaws, but we remain concerned that the placement of such language into the Bylaws requires full consideration of the impact of that language across all of ICANN's activities. We note that a potential approach is for a group to develop a Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Steam 2. It is important that this topic has comprehensive community discussion, including impact on policy development and identification of how those developing policy recommendations should consider human rights within their work, as well as any implications such as on ccTLD re-delegations. Any final formulation of human rights must not extend ICANN's limited mission and scope of responsibilities. . Inspection Rights and Transparency (page 12) The Board remains concerned about the insertion of inspection rights premised on the fact that they would have been available under a member structure. The Board has already agreed that the issues of transparency, including a review of the DIDP and assessment of what additional information (such as financial information) should be made publicly available, is an item for further work. In the Board's view, prior to the development of an inspection right, consideration should be given to what sort of information is expected to be requested, for what purpose and by whom. Further, to address the concerns over increased financial transparency, the Board will be proposing a methodology during the upcoming public comment period through which an independent audit can be initiated, and has instructed staff to start considering how additional financial transparency can be achieved. . Removal of the Board (individual/entire) (pages 21-23) The Board believes that the rationale for the removal of the entire board or an individual Board member must be clearly set out, for example, through reference to a cause for removal that could be set out in a pre-service letter. Additionally, the Board strongly believes the threshold for the removal of the entire board should not go below a total of four SOs and ACs in support of removal. . Board Consideration of GAC advice (page 34) The Board will continue to monitor the discussions. We note that any solution should include a provision that, in the event of the rejection of GAC advice, the Board is only required to enter into a formal consultation process where the GAC advice is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Procedures (which relies on the UN definition of consensus). The Board values receipt of consensus advice as reflected in the current GAC Operating Procedures. Since the first ATRT, there has been a lot of effort made to clarify what "GAC Advice" means and does not mean within GAC Communiqués. Care should be taken not to introduce language into the Bylaws that reduces that clarity and returns the Board to a position of having to negotiate among various positions in its consultation processes. . Sole Designator Model (page 11) The Board supports the Sole Designator model with the understanding that limited powers of appointment, removal and enforcement are maintained as the guiding principles for this model. . AoC Reviews and Implementation Factors (page 31) The Board appreciates the work to incorporate the AOC reviews into the Bylaws and reiterates as a principle that operational/administrative details not be inserted into the Bylaws, in favor of defined standards for such reviews that can be changed (with community participation) through processes that do not require Bylaws changes. . Community Decision-Making Power (page 12) The Board believes it is important that the Community Decision Making Power has appropriate thresholds that are defined in ways that reflect a community decision, and are flexible enough to allow entrance (or exit) of existing or new SOs or ACs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG