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

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Wed Mar 26 08:28:20 UTC 2014

Please submit your input to ianatransition at icann.org

From:  Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:49 PM
To:  Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org>
Cc:  John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>, Grace Abuhamad
<grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, 1Net List <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject:  Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for
IANAoversight transition plan

Hello Nick,

I was hoping to read from you. Perhaps I should further clarify my point.
While I acknowledge your suggestion as a better way to address conflict of
interest. I also think that those who will form member of the external
review team will in one way or the other belong to either of those concerned
especially considering the topic at hand (which is global and applicable to
everyone). If the external team is an organisation then there is also a
possibility of that organisation belonging to business stakeholder...etc
Nevertheless, i think it's good to note that none of the options is perfect
and I think ICANN should apply options that is as  transparent as possible
and also within budget (although on a second thought, budget may not be a
major issue since it's an assigned task. Perhaps NTIA will be involved in
offsetting those bills. So we won't have registries complaining of ICANN
spending their money on external multi-stakeholder stuffs :))

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 25 Mar 2014 18:24, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> I definitely understand you Nick. Can you give me an example of what the
> composition of the external review team will look like?
> Cheers!
> 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/20140326/2da27e25/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/2da27e25/smime.p7s>

More information about the discuss mailing list