Dear Co-Chairs Our chater relating to work Stream 1 indicates / referred to the accountability which must be in place or committed before transition takes place. In CCWG ,to gether with / inconsultation with CWG we have addressed accountability regarding Naming Community. However, regardinfg Parameters / Protocol and Numbers accountability nothing is mentioned. Accoring to IETF and CRISP they do not need any accountability ? WHICHIDOUBT I draw your attention to the PART OF THE latest views of IETF regarding transition : Quote *" The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated agreement. They have drafted the update and from our perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step*." Unqiote It seems to me neither IETF not RIREs wish to have any commuinity empowerment in their activities .Please look at their proposals to ICG dated 06 and 15 January 2015 On the other hand Parameters / Protocol and Numbers like Naming require accountability from those implementing them My question to Lega Adviser is ,reading the proposals from IETF and RIREs to ICG, do they need to be accountable to the community or nor.We need to have a clwear advice on this Regards KAVOUSS