[DTM Escalation] Question Regarding Customer Complaint and Resolution Processes

[Gomes, Chuck]

I don't disagree with you Trang but the fact remains that the CWG proposal referred to the Ombudsman in paragraph 1381.

Chuck

From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org)
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Customer Complaint and Resolution Processes

Hi Chuck,

Agree with you that mediation does not seem appropriate for non-customers in Phase 2 as Phase 2 was designed by the CWG for customers of the naming function. Which is why it's not clear on whose behalf the Ombudsman would initiate mediation since direct customers already have the ability to do that themselves. More generally, any customer or non-customer can file a complaint with the office of the Ombudsman at any time for any reason, and that complaint would follow the established process of the Ombudsman's office, but this is already covered in Phase 1.

With regards to your suggested wording "the ICANN Ombudsman may submit his/her recommendations to the ICANN Board", I would suggest that the reference to the Ombudsman's process be kept at a high-level given that the Ombudsman's role is one of the topics being discussed as part of Work Stream 2. However, I don't think that a mention of the Ombudsman's standard process within the context of Phase 2 makes sense? It seems more appropriate for Phase 1, although I would argue not needed.

Trang

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:00 AM
To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>
Cc: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: Question Regarding Customer Complaint and Resolution Processes

Trang,

I forwarded your message to the DT-M email list just in case any of the members have any thoughts.  I am not overly confident that anyone will respond but I thought I should at least try.  In the meantime, I went back and reviewed DT-M input and the resulting CWG proposal and inserted my personal comments below.  Note that I added the DT-M email list as a cc.

Chuck

From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: Question Regarding Customer Complaint and Resolution Processes

Hi Chuck,

During our work with Sidley on the Naming Function Agreement, we identified an area relating to the Customer Complaint and Resolution Process that we'd like to bring up to the CWG for discussion this Thursday. As you are the lead of Design Team M, we wanted to let you know of this before the Thursday call.

Annex I of the CWG proposal https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf says that should the issue is not resolved after Phase 1, the direct customer, the IFO, and the ICANN Ombudsman can request mediation (paragraph 1381).

Providing the direct customer with the ability to initiate mediation makes sense and that has been incorporated into the Naming Function Agreement. It's unlikely that the IFO as the service provider would initiate mediate with a customer, but as the CWG proposal provides the option, we will incorporate the IFO into the Agreement as well.

As for the Ombudsman, we would like clarification from the CWG as to what the thinking is to provide the Ombudsman with the ability to initiate mediation. The Ombudsman function is to act as an informal dispute resolution office for the ICANN community, who may wish to lodge a complaint about ICANN staff, Board or problems in supporting organizations (https://www.icann.org/ombudsman). Our guess is that since Phase 2 is limited to the direct customers, the IFO and the Ombudsman, it would be non-customers whose issues are not resolved in Phase 1 that would go to the Ombudsman in Phase 2 to try to get the issue resolved. However, what's unclear is that if the Ombudsman does take up the issue and ends up finding in favor of the non-customers, per established processes, he would issue a report with his recommendations to the ICANN Board -- so it's unclear how the mediation process factors into the Ombudsman's role and processes. We'd like to ask for clarification from the CWG on this point.
[Chuck Gomes] It's been quite a while so I am stretching my memory but I don't recall us focusing specifically on the Ombudsman regarding the ability to request mediation.  I believe the Ombudsman was included in that sentence because it was one of the three options mentioned earlier. And you make some very good points.  In the case of non-customers, who would the mediation parties be?  It does not seem appropriate to have mediation involving non-customers.  Would it work to reword it something like this: "If issue is not addressed, the complainant (direct customer) or the IFO may request mediation or the ICANN
Ombudsman may submit his/her recommendations to the ICANN Board."

Thank you, Chuck!

Trang




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20160831/290f17e0/attachment.html>