[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for IANAoversight transition plan
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 10:07:37 UTC 2014
The way I see it, the stakeholder leaders and ICANN are part of the review
team(as I used number 5x4=20 as an example) so even if it's taken to an
independent review team. There is noting that makes the same concern not
applicable (the independent review team could also have an affiliation with
other stakeholder member)
The situation we have here is not like an external auditor reviewing
(auditing) a company account. In this case, the external auditor belongs to
one of the stakeholder and then a return to the status-quo of possible
conflict of interest. Hence the reason why a collective review will be most
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2014 17:24, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss