Hello WG4 team: I recognize that there have been several attempts to catalog the various scenarios and situations that would benefit from improved accountability mechanisms. But as a conversation starter, I would propose that there are really only two contingencies: * The ICANN Board takes action that is opposed by a significant majority (or unanimously) of stakeholders (SO/AC), or * The ICANN Board refuses to take action despite significant support (or unanimity) of stakeholders (SO/AC). It's my opinion that addressing these two over-arching contingencies will naturally sweep up nearly all other scenarios. Thoughts? Thanks- J. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 19:00 To: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>> Subject: [Area 4] Comments from Mr. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC, ICG) Dear all, Here attached is Mr. Arasteh's first contribution to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as he shared on the main mailing list on 15 December. Below I've copied an excerpt of his document that relates to WA4. 2.4 Working Group 4 This scope of work of this Group is to identify contingencies (especially in relation with WS1) The above-mentioned scope is quite vague and ambiguous Best, Grace