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

[joseph alhadeff]

If we can appropriately segregate the topics of the organization of the 
process (who pours the coffee and buys the donuts), the decision-making 
in the process and method of consultation with a broad range of groups 
we may well be able to address issues of possible conflict.
On 3/25/2014 6:07 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hello Nick,
>
> 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 desirable.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 25 Mar 2014 17:24, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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/d5a5f262/attachment.html>