At the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth I will add my two cents from 
the outside perspective of one who has dealt with transparency and 
accountability in other settings. ICANN is so historically rich with 
internal (and ICANN insider stakeholder) dialogue that it is all too 
easy to sound like one had just arrived from Mars when adding comments 
to the discussion. Here goes:

The two core principles of accountability are process transparency to 
relevant stakeholders and relevant stakeholder engagement in dialogue, 
policy formation, and the monitoring and evaluation of implementation. I 
have deliberately used the term >relevant< here since that issue will 
frequently boil to the surface when the struggles get intense within a 
multistakeholder process. There is no disagreement about the fact that 
both the IANA transition proposal and the future structure of ICANN need 
defined and acceptable accountability process proposals. In fact, the 
slow spread of multistakeholder approaches is tossing up that challenge 
in many areas, beyond the IANA transition and the future of ICANN.

For the IANA transition proposal and for ICANN one issue is the extent 
to which the two accountability process proposals are linked. The term 
 >linked< can be understood in several ways. One focuses on the 
properties of the accountability process template(s) being proposed for 
IANA and ICANN. Another is related to the strategic importance of the 
sequence and the timing of proposals, this in light of the fact that the 
IANA transition proposal process has a tighter timeline than does an 
ICANN accountability proposal, not to mention the additional 
complication brought on by the possibility that ICANN itself may soon be 
in transition itself.

Here, as a recent arrival from Mars, is my understanding of where things 
stand. The accountability template for the IANA transition process 
proposal will be tabled well before the ICANN accountability process 
template is completed. The IATA process will cover a narrower remit than 
will the accountability process for ICANN, but it will contain the 
principles, and be a prototype, on which ICANN’s process will build.

It is important to remember that ICANN’s remit is broader and that the 
IANA template will be only part of an ICANN template. There is no 
strategic risk to the IANA accountability template preceding ahead of 
the ICANN accountability template, if we remember that ICANN’s remit and 
accountability will be wider and deeper than what suffices for IANA. The 
IANA process can in fact be treated as a learning experience with regard 
to embodied principles and the process of getting there. The ICANN 
process will learn a bit about what works, what doesn’t work, what to 
do, and what not to do, to honor its commitment to meaningful 
multistakeholder engagement in the development of a broader and deeper 
ICANN accountability process. They are two linked but separate processes.

That is my two cents, from my Mars-like perspective. Where I have read 
things wrong I hope I have at least presented well delineated targets 
for response and attack.

Sam Lanfranco