The co-chairs noted yesterday that they have seen a lot of traction for the designator model. To me it is apparent that an offline decision to shift to the designator model has already been made by the community leaders in order to reach consensus; and there will be a move to that effect in the upcoming meeting. In my opinion, in case a shift to the designator model is made, the following minimum conditions must be met by the CCWG to ensure that the CWG requirement of separability (Power 7) is not weakened: 1) First, the bylaws must provide a clear and unambiguous responsibility for the board to not reject the result of the community separation process unless the board comes to the conclusion that the community had vitiated the established procedure. 2) Second, transparency mechanisms, including DIDP reforms, must be shifted to Work Stream 1 in order to ensure that ICANN can not frustrate arbitration proceedings by refusing to provide documents in case of an ex-parte arbitration. 3) Third, the NomCom must make take measures to ensure that the replacement board, which is selected after a board spill, does not take the same decision as the previous board. These measures may include increased transparency in selection process or molding interview questions according to community decisions. 4) Fourth, there must be a new round for public comments for the changed proposal; and community feedback must be sincerely taken into account while determining consensus. I hope these suggestions are constructively taken into account. Regards, Guru