[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Bill,

the aim is to identify the greatest common subset among IGC members and 
find out if this subset is substantial enough for a statement. 3.0 
architectural options are clearly beyond that. The point of contention 
concerns the requirements for an independent ICANN. What should be those 
requirements in your view?

jeanette

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).  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