Universal characteristics of mediation include the neutrality or impartiality of the mediator, the voluntariness of the process, the confidentiality of the relationship between the mediator and the parties, and the procedural flexibility available to the mediator. The four conditions are that mediation must be acceptable to the disputing parties and that the mediation process must involve a corps of qualified and acceptable mediators, a means for bringing the disputants and the mediators together, and a method for funding mediation efforts. Professor Susskind proposes a broader role for the mediator in a dispute resolution process, giving the mediator a greater degree of accountability for the outcome of a mediation effort than traditionally imposed. The objective is to ensure that the public at large is adequately represented during a mediation effort and adequately protected in a mediated settlement. Susskind suggests three approaches for holding environmental mediators accountable: credentialing, linking mediators to regulatory agencies and to courts, and creating an informed public. A fourth proposal for achieving mediator accountability would make mediators liable for harmful actions. Problems with the Susskind proposal stem from three omissions. He has not given sufficient attention to the nature of the mediation process and the characteristics which have made it acceptable to disputants and to neutrals. He has not considered, in a practical way, the role that mediation can and should play in resolving environmental disputes. He has not considered the practical effect of his proposal on the mediation process. A total of 108 footnotes are provided.