[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On May 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Hi Anriette,
>>
>> I still believe that the JPA can be ended, subject to ICANN agreeing to
>> certain binding conditions. That I think is a far preferable 
>> arrangement if
>> it can happen.
>
> Among whom would the binding conditions be agreed? In what form? How 
> would their implementation be monitored and assessed? What 
> consequences would flow from failure to implement? And so on...we're 
> not going to get consensus on a statement that's based on abstractions 
> and leaps of faith. What's really needed is some serious brainstorming 
> on 3.0 architectural options that are responsive to what goes on 
> within the organization and to the growing intergovernmental 
> machinations outside of it (witness this week's CSTD meeting etc).
I agree Bill. Can you propose some outlines of what you think will be 
the best model, which can serve to kick off a discussion. Good if it can 
contribute to the proposed statement, but even if doesnt it will be an 
important and long over due discussion for the caucus to have. Parminder


> Can we do this before June 8?
>
> Bill
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance