<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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.<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/25/2014 6:07 AM, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6gr-Q5C=Ur7mx4OfzMA_ebVto_6mjgeO5_th8+HB7Vk6Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>