[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan

[Ian Peter]

I like Nick’s suggestion of an independently conducted review reporting back to stakeholders– for all the reasons he mentions, but also for the reason I suggested it in my netmundial submission – it it more likely to be conducted in an efficient and timely manner than a review subject to all of ICANN’s processes and procedures.

An independent review solves a lot of problems, and I suggest that without it, (based on my assessment of inputs and reactions to date), there is a less than 50% chance of any satisfactory and acceptable outcome by September 2015. Most organisations facing similar challenges would avail themselves of independent expertise to assist in obtaining a satisfactory outcome.

Ian Peter

From: Nick Ashton-Hart 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:24 PM
To: Seun Ojedeji 
Cc: 1Net List ; John Curran 
Subject: Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan

Dear Seun, 

Thanks for your comments, and while I understand you do not see a conflict of interest issue, I can assure you: there are others who absolutely will. If major governments were to decide that they didn't like the result of the process they could suggest that it was flawed due to the conflicts issue. 


On 25 Mar 2014, at 10:06, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:


  Hello Nick, kindly find my response inset

  sent from Google nexus 4
  kindly excuse brevity and typos.
  On 25 Mar 2014 16:51, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Seun, these are useful ideas, but I think there's a step that needs to happen in advance of this.
  >
  > The first question to ask is: Should ICANN staff oversee the consultation process, or should it be non-staff-led?
  >
  Well the NTIA determined that ICANN would coordinate this and really unless we are not being transparent in the process, it should not necessarily be a major issue. Again remember that all ICANN will be doing is administrative and the final resolution will be at the 1 time neutral ground event.

  > I think there's a problem if ICANN - or the RIR - staff this directly for several reasons, most profoundly that there are stakeholders that will see it as a conflict of interest for staff members to run a process that affects the organisation that pays them every month. 
  >
  The only place I foresee there could be an issue is the categorisation so perhaps the categorisation of the contributions can be done with the 20 stakeholder reps in sync.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140325/c7dd9490/attachment-0001.html>