A few comments on page 1 to 20

- A general foot note be added indicating that IANA function review only refers to the naming function
- Since this is a summary there is no need for much explanation for instance the 2 paragraph after the SD image on page 10 is not necessary
- Page 12 -Note 2: I understand the challenge the clause tries to alleviate, but I am really concerned about the fact that all resolutions will wait 15 days before they can be acted upon. I think its important to check with board whether there are any example of resolutions that cannot delay so they can be exempted. If for instance board resolve to remove a CEO or even appoint an interim CEO due to exit(perhaps death) of the present OR if board resolve on issues that generally concerns IETF or RIR. Those are matters that seem to require urgent implementation. I think there is need for promptness and delaying activities just to catch one that may never happen in years to come does not sound efficient to me.

- Page 12 - Conference call: I think the model by which community decides should be included as a bullet point. I expect it will be by virtue of support or against.

- Page 12 - Community forum: I just hope that we will not be getting to this stage often as that seem like a huge cost to me (face 2 face meetings). Oil was more valuable than it is now, lets not think it will all be juicy with ICANN-cordinated names space forever and our proposal should be sustainable for years to come.

- Page 12/13 - Holding community forum: I don't think its realistic for some SO/AC to participate in a face2face within 15days notice. It may be good to add a bullet point that indicates the minimum /maximum number of each SO/AC that will be supported to be present at the face 2 face. Such number needs to be balanced across SO/AC

- The Flowchart on page 11 should indicate the number of days for each escalation levels and the final total on level 6

- From page 11 through to 13, its not stated what will happen to the particular decision of board that is been put on hold. For instance, board resolve to remove the CEO and if the trigger community requirement is meet against such move, does it mean the CEO to be removed will continue to operate all through the escalation levels?

- page 18 - Removal of individual board of directors: Is it correct that this same process will affect the numbers/GAC(and any other) director irrespective of whether they are participating in the accountability mechanisms or not? may be good to be explicit about that

- Page 18 - Petition: First bullet lacks a little clarity on whether the SO/AC has the option to reject the petition. I suggest wording as thus: "....the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee must accept or reject the petition according to its own mechanisms". Secondly there seem to be multiple conference call, who is supposed to participate in the first conference call for bullet 2. Again the overall status of the said director during these escalation process needs to be stated. i.e will the director still have all rights to participate within the board during this process? Just a bullet point should specify that