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

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 18:23:20 UTC 2014

I think you trivialize the issues here. if you include in "organization of
the process"- determining modes (and costs) of participation, organization
of the modality of the meeting (location, participation fee, language,
electronic supports), selectively providing "bursaries" for participation,
designing inclusions/exclusions from the agenda etc.etc.) then having an
influence on these, even if indirect, may be highly significant in
influencing outcomes.




From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:15 AM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for
IANAoversight transition plan


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


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.



discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140325/4948f8e3/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list