[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting

[farzaneh badii]

Thank you Seb.

I had a cursory review and I don't see what I have recommended is
implemented or been considered. I could not properly attend all the the
Ombuds group meetings but I don't think that means my comments should not
be considered.

I have to raise my concerns which I have reiterated over and over in that
group and seems like not many people agree with me, so I might have to file
a dissent but I'd like to raise my concerns here as well:

1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the
ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5
years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be
given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed
five-year contract won't solve the problem.

2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a
person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have
preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its
revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure
independence.

3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend
community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you
ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking
and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in
first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by
social encounters and interactions)

I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand
the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not
considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2
group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.

Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can
discuss it during the plenary.

Best

Farzaneh




Farzaneh

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr>
wrote:

> 19th September 2017,
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present
> to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report
> titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for
> first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was
> finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the
> IOO Sub-Group.
>
> As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and
> discuss any comments from our CCWG.
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our
> IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached
> documents.
>
> All the best
>
> IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
>
> Sebastien Bachollet
>
> Attached:
>
>    1. IOO first Report
>    2. External evaluator’s final report
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-ombudsman mailing list
> Ws2-ombudsman at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170919/798fab10/attachment.html>