<p dir="ltr">Hello Nick,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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)<br>
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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 25 Mar 2014 17:24, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org">nashton@ccianet.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear Seun,<div><br></div><div>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.�<br>
<br><div><div>On 25 Mar 2014, at 10:06, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr" style="font-family:OpenSans;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
Hello Nick, kindly find my response inset</p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family:OpenSans;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
sent from Google nexus 4<br>kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>On 25 Mar 2014 16:51, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org" target="_blank">nashton@ccianet.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Dear Seun, these are useful ideas, but I think there's a step that needs to happen in advance of this.<br>
><br>> The first question to ask is: Should ICANN staff oversee the consultation process, or should it be non-staff-led?<br>><br>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.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="font-family:OpenSans;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
> 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.�<br>
><br>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.</p><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div>