Dear all, As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f). 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference Mechanism CURRENT TEXT Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below ‐ mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually possible. SUGGESTED TEXT f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable. Izumi