Thanks, that first link is very helpful, Marika. Wish I’d discovered it earlier! On 12/12/14, 8:15 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Steve, You may have already seen this, but following the public comment period, staff also attempted to summarise the issues as well as solutions identified that may assist in this effort. You can find the summary of proposed solutions here: https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg and the summary of issues identified here: https://community.icann.org/x/mibxAg. Best regards, Marika From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday 12 December 2014 06:08 To: "ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Area 2] Welcome to Work Area 2 Thanks for volunteering to help with Work Area 2: to Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2. Our deliverable (by Monday) is a list of items that have been suggested, and identify whether these belong in WS1 or WS2. As our rapporteur, I drafted a format that might be useful to our working group colleagues. And I filled-in about a page of items to show how this format could work. (attached) There are around 70 comments in the two comment periods we need to examine. Not every comment includes suggested accountability mechanisms. The process I recommend is: First, scan the comment and for any accountability suggestion,and see if there’s already a similar item in the list/table. If so, add the comment source under the Source column (Google, BC, etc.) If not in the list yet, add the row and the source. Second, Indicate whether this accountability item should be required before the IANA contract is relinquished (WS1). If it can wait until after transition, it goes into Work Stream 2 (WS2) Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily. Make sense? Now, how to divide the work? I suggest that Paul Rosenzweig, Jordan Carter, and I go thru the 53 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/>, 7-May thru 30-Jul, 2014. Could we have a few others volunteer to go thru the second set of comments? There are 21 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/index...>, 6-Sep thru 13-Oct, 2014 Ideas welcome! — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 12/11/14, 5:11 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2 Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both. Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco Volunteers: * Jordan Carter * Leon Sanchez Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/