Dear John, You are correct that the survey did not refer to specific accountability standards, and I tend to agree that it is close to a “community satisfaction survey”. It’s up to this group to decide what you mean by SO/AC accountability and whether that type of approach is part of it, and/or specific standards are recommended. Best Mathieu De : John Curran [mailto:jcurran@istaff.org] Envoyé : jeudi 28 juillet 2016 02:40 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : ws2-so_ac@icann.org Objet : Re: [Ws2-so_ac] ccNSO survey on accountability On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Colleagues, With permission from the ccNSO, I am sharing two links related to the recent survey conducted on the ccNSO’s accountability. Results were discussed in Helsinki. I think this example can be a useful input for this group. <https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-MCSN6TQT/> https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-MCSN6TQT/ http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/helsinki56/accountability-survey-results-30j... Mathieu - If I understand the survey, it was focused on the ccNSO community’s views of the ccNSO Council’s accountability to that community, without any reference to specific accountability performance standards? (for example - “Has the ccNSO Council administrated and coordinated the affairs of the ccNSO in accordance with article IX off the ICANN bylaws”, or “Has the operation of the ccNSO Council resulted in ccNSO decision making occurring in a manner open and transparent to the ccNSO community?" I do believe that the survey is very useful, and I am simply trying better understand its purpose so as to compare it to the work of this subgroup. I guess if I were to categorize the survey, I would label it as a “community satisfaction” survey - is that what we mean by "SO/AC accountability?” Thanks! /John Disclaimer: my views alone - hold no other party accountable for same.