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

Wed Sep 20 23:39:47 UTC 2017

Hello

We had a part of the WS2 Diversity insertion at the end of the report which
portrayed the view of some members of the group exactly on staff role
towards this work.

So it could be an interesting path to follow here.

I agree w/ the points raised on ombudsperson work too.

Best,

Renata

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>
wrote:

> I am only a participant too.
>
> Work on WG at ICANN has several principles. One of the main ones is the
> consensus, and among others the fulfillment of the schedules.
>
> I believe that this subgroup has complied with these two principles.
>
> If there is dissent after this, and you have not participated in the
> moments in which the decisions have been made, I think they should make
> known who it corresponds to, but not change the consensus achieved within
> the working group
>
>
>
> Maybe there should be a procedure so that when a deadline has expired, and
> a consensus version has already been delivered, someone who could not be
> present when that consensus was formed, can send their opinion.
>
> This does not break the consensus reached and who has to decide also has
> that opinion of the minority.
>
> Otherwise no WG would achieve its purpose and the debate would be extended
> for a long time.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Alberto
>
> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *En nombre de *Marilyn
> Cade
> *Enviado el:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:23 PM
> *Para:* Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org>; Mueller, Milton
> L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *CC:* ws2-ombudsman at icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; CCWG
> accountability WS2 <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Asunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report
> to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting
>
>
>
> I am only a participant.
>
>
>
> However, this seems to me to be a little " over the top" in
> misundertanding the obligation to be independent in decision and not
> attending ICANN.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, we cannot allow any ICANN staff, including the Senior staff,
> supporting staff and Board to engage with the community, as they will be
> "infected" by us.
>
>
>
> I know I am a winsome personality, but I note with some regret that no one
> ever changed their view after encountering me at a breakfast, or over a
> social event.  I must need to improve my powers of persuasion. Perhaps I
> can study DUNE, and seek to achieve some kind of magical powers, where if
> one has a drink or food in my presence, suddenly they are converted to my
> "view".
>
>
>
> How about this: no ICANN staff should accept a paid drink, or meal from a
> member of the community
>
>
>
> Full stop.
>
>
>
> No ICANN staff should discuss pending policy positions -- WAIT, isn't it
> important for the ICANN staff to listen to the community.  BUT, again, the
> Ombudsman is not ICANN staff. so?
>
>
>
> The Ombudsman should buy his/her own coffee, drinks, dinner, etc, if they
> happen to attend events where such costs occur.
>
>
>
> HMMM.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Ombudsman should be independently funded, and the office of the
> Ombudsman should be required to NOT discuss any pending or ongoing
> procedure that they are engaged in.
>
>
>
> The Ombudsman's office should attend, without offering comment, as many of
> the ICANN events as possible, and attend as many sessions on site as
> possible, while fulfilling their obligations as the independent Ombudsman.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Michael
> Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Cc:* CCWG accountability WS2; ws2-ombudsman at icann.org; Thomas Rickert
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report
> to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just to chime in - #3 really seems like a good point, to me. I could
> certainly see a potential complainant for, say, harassment, being
> deterred from reporting if they saw the Ombudsman drinking and
> socializing with the subject of their complaint. Though it may make
> the job less fun - I do think it's important to keep distance when one
> has such a position.
>
> #2 also seems very important... but also challenging. Having an
> external 3rd party provide ombudsman services may not solve this
> problem since, presumably, they would still need to be contracted in
> by ICANN, leaving them equally subject to influence - and potentially
> even more so. Imagine the Ombudsman was someone seconded over from
> some KPMG-like organization. Wouldn't their higher ups pressure them
> to avoid rocking the boat, and jeopardizing the contract? I am
> personally more accustomed to such challenges in a public sector
> context where, indeed, longer and fixed-term contracts (security of
> tenure) are the preferred means of ensuring that an official (like,
> say, human rights commissioners) won't be swayed by political forces,
> along with making the official difficult to fire through oversight of
> termination proceedings and strong and specific requirements for cause
> (incapacity, missing a certain number of meetings, demonstrated
> incompetence, etc.).
>
> Just some thoughts. Thanks of course to Sebastien for his excellent
> work on this, and to Farzi for bringing these issues up.
>
> Michael Karanicolas
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> 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 list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
> mm.icann.org
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN
> Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About
> Accountability-Cross-Community
>
>
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
> mm.icann.org
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN
> Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About
> Accountability-Cross-Community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a0db1bfd/attachment.html>