Assessing the ICANN JPA

Mon Jan 21 21:39:00 CET 2008

At 4:30 PM +0900 1/21/08, Adam Peake wrote:

>I hope the NCUC will support ICANN's response to the JPA, that it
>should be concluded, but we should also require continued independent
>oversight to assess bylaws compliance, progress with milestones, etc.

If so, these positions should be contingently linked -- NCUC support for
concluding the JPA might be given *only if* continued independent oversight
is *put in place and in effect* at that moment of JPA conclusion to take

Inextricably joined at the hip.

So, then the question is what kind of new independent oversight should be
created.  And, of course, this is the key accountability question.  This is
the horse that must be put before the cart.


PS -- In this scenario, NCUC should also determine what characteristics a
new independent oversight structure should have, in order for NCUC to
support it.  Not just any old oversight structure will be genuinely
accountable.  What structural characteristics would NCUC require of a new
system of independent oversight in order to accept such oversight as

There could be a chicken-egg issue here, but I don't know for sure.

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list