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

[Mueller, Milton L]

I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170919/1c7943ac/attachment.html>