<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Please submit your input to ianatransition@icann.org</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:49 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Nick Ashton-Hart <<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org">nashton@ccianet.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>>, Grace Abuhamad <<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org">grace.abuhamad@icann.org</a>>, 1Net List <<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for IANAoversight transition plan<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><p dir="ltr">Hello Nick,</p><p dir="ltr">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<br>
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 :))</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 18:24, "Seun Ojedeji" <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I definitely understand you Nick. Can you give me an example of what the composition of the external review team will look like?</p><p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p><p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 Mar 2014 18:19, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org" target="_blank">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">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.
<div><br></div><div>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.<br><br><div><div>On 25 Mar 2014, at 11:07, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span 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;float:none;display:inline!important">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)</span><br 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"><span 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;float:none;display:inline!important">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.</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></span></body></html>