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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Sep 20 23:40:14 UTC 2017


Correction: "can just" meant to write "can't just"

Hopefully my signature already covered that :-)

Regards
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Sep 20, 2017 10:59 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting comments. A few comments of mine inline:
>
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Sep 19, 2017 4:54 PM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> :
>
> 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.
>
>
> SO: Sorry do you mind stating what the problem is here? However I see some
> benefit with giving the ombudsperson job guarantee. Where I come from there
> is some level of job security for confirmed govt staff in that you can just
> get dismissed by any head of the govt org without proper hearing.
>
> Perhaps there can be an exception for the ombudsperson that the decision
> to terminate his/her contract will include the community and not just left
> to ICANN HR/management alone.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> SO: Fine with the making it an office, but I am not sure we will be
> solving all independence issues by giving the role to an external
> organization. It may indeed create so much more problem than ever
> imagine(it's such a small world). I actually think a path of external in
> this context might further create mis-trust as I don't see how that
> guarantees trust unless we are saying that the external organization will
> also be paid by an external body and not by ICANN. Even that will only
> isn't enough to guarantee 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)
>
>
> SO: Okay I think this is way too much. What exactly are we trying to turn
> that person holding the office into? A ghost or something like that ;-) If
> he can't socialize with the community how does he/she know/learn about the
> community? Ofcourse it's fine to expect some level of decorum from such
> person just like one expects of ICANN leaders like the Board, SO/AC leaders
> et all.
>
> Regards
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170921/9580d18f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list