Hi, I've been through the final draft with an eye to issues that I thought were important after the 3d draft. Here's what I noticed. ANNEX 4 In Annex 4, in the discussion of removing directors, I recall some discussion in one call about liaisons to the board. We concluded that the recall powers did not extend to those liaisons. Those liaisons are treated by ICANN as non-voting board members, though, so presumably this section needs to mention that the recall powers don't extend to the liasons. It's implicit in the text, but could be made explicit. I suggest a parenthetical sentence or footnote at the end of ¶40. Here's one suggestion: "Note that this power applies only to voting members of the ICANN Board, and not to liaisons." I should note that the diagrams and the headlines in this section are numbered differently. Step 3 is the community forum, but the diagram says Step 4; I think that's where the disconnect happens). At ¶50 (which is either step 5 or step 6 ;-) ) there's a bullet, "Naming a replacement". It'd be a good idea to call out here that the actual mechanism by which the replacement is named hasn't actually been established yet, and needs to be sorted out in WS2. The same clarification about liaisons could be made clear in ¶60, probably in the parenthetical bit "(except the CEO)". In ¶77, "The right to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions" should say "The right to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA naming functions", in keeping with ¶75 and the section title. I think this is important in light of the IAB comment that draft 3 was not clear enough that the IANA functions IRP reviews were not adequately limited in scope. ANNEX 5 ¶11, the mission. Item 1 says, 'Coordinates the allocation and assignment of in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS").' There appears to be a word missing, after "of". I think "labels", "names", or maybe "delegations" are ok. I very much prefer the first of these, and note that "delegations" is probably too narrow since it wouldn't cover things like glue records. Also, bullet 1 (starting with "For which uniform or coordinated") has italics at the end (not sure whether that's intentional) and finishes with a colon as opposed to a semicolon. This is all reproduced at ¶39. I must have missed this in previous iterations, and I apologise. I note that Annex 7 has been explicitly altered to address the IAB's comment about that annex. I believe the change is in keeping with the IAB's comment (I haven't checked, but it'd be hard to see how not). I appreciate the change. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com