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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Excellent resource, thank you for this Sam, appreciate it.

On Sep 20, 2017 08:33, "Sam Lanfranco" <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> Rather than recount arguments about the various issues surrounding an
> ombudspersons office, I will suggest a short and thoughtful read by an
> experience ombudsperson who served at a University I once taught at.
> It is a short and thoughtful reflection. See: http://www.agreeinc.com/
> ombudsman.html The multistakeholder constituency basis of ICANN suggests
> some interesting (but not too challenging) variations on parts of what is
> discussed in the article.
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
> On 9/19/2017 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <+1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <+1%20416-816-2852>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170920/6fbdfbd9/attachment.html>