Dear Leon and All Happy if the amendments to the SO/AC accountability document were suitable. In addition, the first sentence of the second paragraph wants to end in a full stop rather than a question mark? In the last paragraph, before the list of action points, perhaps insert 'adequately' in front of 'address'? More substantively, I'd suggest that the list of action points at the end could be strengthened somewhat. For example, one could add the proposals (a) to include accountability in the remit of SO/AC reviews (as previously suggested by Matthieu); and (b) to include SO/AC accountability on the ATRT agenda. In addition, we perhaps also need to add something to the list about the operational rules and procedures of the SO/ACs. We have not yet undertaken point 4 on the document review, and there is probably not time to do it thoroughly before Paris. I had a quick look at the ASO documentation, since ASO/NRO/RIRs seem to practice a high degree of accountability both among themselves and to the respective RIR memberships. However, the ASO documentation itself says quite little about cornerstones of accountability, such as transparency, consultation, evaluation and redress. My hunch (perhaps to be proved wrong) would be that other SO/AC documentation is equally silent on these matters. What to do? We could promise that a full ‘accountabilitisation’ of SO/AC documentation will be undertaken as a WS2 matter within the first two years after the IANA transition, coordinated by the CCWG and subject to wider approval in the IANA transition review. However, if that is not quick enough - i.e. if we anticipate that the Senate will want more concrete evidence of enhanced SO/AC accountability before endorsing the transition - then perhaps the revision of documentation could be undertaken during August-September and be reviewed by WP3/CCWG at Dublin. Doing it now has the advantages of (a) ensuring that it gets done and (b) preempting Senate objections. Doing it in the medium term has the advantage of (if done well) doing the review more thoughtfully and with fuller participation of the respective SOs and ACs. But in any case the CCWG proposal that we are currently finalizing needs to say something on this matter, no? Hope this helps Jan ________________________________________ Från: wp3-bounces@icann.org <wp3-bounces@icann.org> för León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Skickat: den 13 juli 2015 07:29 Till: wp3@icann.org; ACCT-Staff Ämne: [Wp3] Agenda for our call Dear all, Attached you will find the documents to be discussed in our call later today. I have included Jan’s changes to SO/AC accountability. The paper on Staff accountability remains unchanged. I would urge the members of Staff accountability group to please provide your input to the document. I am also attaching the Diversity draft document set up by Sebastién Bachollet. You should all have a link to the google doc versions of each document. Please provide your input so we can have final versions by tomorrow and review in our call on Tuesday., This will enable us to deliver in time for frozen document time for our Paris meeting. Agenda: 1- Welcome and roll call 2- Review of SO/AC accountability draft 3- Review of Staff accountability draft 4- Review of Diversity draft 5- AOB. Best regards,