<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "> CIR management, especially vis a vis oversight issues, came to my mind as I read this. Those who have rooted for the current AoC based review mechanisms as *the* oversight system may especially take note. This report shows the need and the role of independent and outside oversight systems for critical technical infrastructures.</span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Parminder - </div><div> </div><div> Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review</div><div> mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also,</div><div> are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the</div><div> independence of same?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the</div><div>preparation this email.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>