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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 10:24:42 UTC 2014

I definitely understand you Nick. Can you give me an example of what the
composition of the external review team will look like?


sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2014 18:19, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:

> 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/ba1d5a7f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list