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