I understand the CCWG has identified who the community is based on who will be "directly" or "indirectly" affected by ICANN's actions, but most of the proposals, if not all of them, tabled today - be it on community empowerment, powers to remove the Board, etc -- seem too focused on static ICANN constituencies. This is fine if the CCWG feels it is not within the group's remit to think beyond the SO/ACs of ICANN. Personally, I think any exercise to enhance the Corporation's accountability should consider the audience it will cater to in the future. It is not enough that "business" or "at large" or "non-commercial users" are labelled so as ICANN constituencies. Where is the discussion in the CCWG on the concerns of representation within them - based on gender, age, geographical representation, nature of internet access? The most appropriate policy intervention that the CCWG can make in this regard to draft an expansive Mission Statement and Core Values. Yet, we seem happy to confine its vision to conform to ICANN Bylaws (which, wearing my lawyer's hat is difficult to understand given the preamble is always more expansive than the operational statute). I raise this only because the question of ICANN accountability is not a technocratic/legal exercise alone. The issue of accountability was brought to the table only later in 2014, although the NTIA did not feel it necessary to include it in its original announcement. A political opening, therefore, requires, I hesitate to add, an equally sensitive response. Otherwise, the accountability working group's output will be seen as moving far too little in this direction. cheers arun -- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272