I will add one note to the document, and that is simply that we need to specifically
consider SO/AC accountability _with respect to the scope of ICANN’s Mission_,
rather than in general. For example, the ASO AC may perform activities on behalf
of the Internet numbers community which are unrelated to the specific tasks in
the ASO/ICANN agreement and the IETF for all practical matter performs all of
its activities external to ICANN - It is perfectly reasonable to consider accountability
of SO/AC’s within ICANN, but that should be for activities also within ICANN.
This is not an issue with respect to organizations defined entirely by and within
ICANN, but rather for those communities that organize independently of ICANN
and have a formal legal agreement of the relationship with ICANN.

Apologies - apparently I was repeating a point (i.e. that the scope of this effort should

be explicitly defined to be with respect to the role of SO's and AC's within ICANN) that

was already stated by Athina Fragkouli [an ASO representative to the CCWG WS2] on

our 4 August call...

Yes, thank you very much. The whole project is about ICANN’s accountability. Of course, SOs and ACs have a role and several responsibilities within the ICANN structure. I believe we should be very careful of that because for example, the number policy discussions are not taking place within ICANN. They’re taking place elsewhere, and ASO has a very specific role there. This role is to channel policy proposals that are made elsewhere.

Some of the accountability tools and measures we discussed might not be applicable in the ASO, for example. I would suggest that it might be appropriate to lead a little bit the scope of this SO/AC accountability in the role of each SO and AC within ICANN. Thank you.

It might be helpful if this point made into our draft progress report so it does not have

to be restated on each call.

Disclaimer: my views alone.