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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm suggesting that the operational management and syntheses of options, drawing-in of outside expertise, etc. may be best run by an independent third party with no 'stake' in the result. The participation in the process would be open to all and the conclusions reached would be driven by stakeholder input - but managed impartially.

I don't see how a committee-driven process run by insiders is inherently desirable if many of them are similarly conflicted in their business lives.

On 25 Mar 2014, at 11:07, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140325/e94599f1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140325/e94599f1/signature.asc>