[Ws2-ombudsman] Fwd: Request on Ombuds questions

[Karel Douglas]

>From the legal point of view ICANN legal seem absolutely correct. Unless
there is clear bias /danger then the ombudsman should be allowed to partake
in these discussions esp as they have an enormous wealth of experience ,
skills and knowledge to contribute.

Karel DOUGLAS

On 1 December 2016 at 12:30, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:

> Dear Sebastién,
>
> Please find below the reply from ICANN legal to the questions submitted by
> the Ombudsman Subgroup to the legal Committee.
>
> The legal committee reviewed and discussed the answer provided by ICANN
> legal and concluded the following:
>
> 1. The reply seems to be both legally reasonable and in line with common
> sense;
>
> 2. Some members of the legal committee suggest this seems to be more a
> policy question rather than a legal one so in turn we suggest, should the
> group chose to do so, to consider posing this questions to the plenary
> group.
>
> Please let us know if you have any doubts or further comments.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> *Asunto: **Re: Request on Ombuds questions*
> *Fecha: *30 de noviembre de 2016, 19:10:06 GMT-6
> *Para: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, John Jeffrey <
> JJ at ICANN.org>
> *Cc: *Accountability Staff <accountability-staff at icann.org>, "
> ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
>
> Question:  Is the current ICANN Ombusman [and his predecessor] placing
> himself in a conflict of interest by participating in the sub-group which
> will have responsibility for the external review of the Office of the
> Ombudsman? If so what should the Ombudsman do to avoid such a conflict
> (completely recuse himself from all aspects or only from making or
> approving recommendations)?
>
>
> Response: We do not believe that the scope of the WS2 work on the
> Ombudsman poses a conflict of interest such that the ICANN Ombudsman or his
> predecessor need to recuse themselves from the work of the subgroup.  The
> current and prior Ombudsman each have identified interests in this work –
> the current Ombudsman has a contract with ICANN and is paid for his service
> as Ombudsman.  The prior Ombudsman used to be.  Any and all contributions
> of the Ombudsman can be considered with that identified interest in mind.
> The current and the prior Ombudsman each have a unique perspective on the
> ICANN Office of the Ombudsman, and the current Ombudsman is addressing how
> to take on the new roles assigned in the new Bylaws.  Each likely has
> information that is invaluable to the group’s deliberations. The ICANN
> Ombudsman is a unique role, and excluding the Ombudsman or his predecessor
> from attempts to improve and better understand that role could impair the
> achievements of the best results.
>
> We would also expect that the current (and possibly the prior Ombudsman)
> will likely be interviewed by the reviewer, once selected.  Once
> recommendations are made, just as in the organizational review process
> where the entity under review provides reactions to the recommendations,
> seeking the reaction of the Ombudsman may also be a valuable step here.
>
> In summary, if the Ombudsman or his predecessor is willing to participate
> in the subgroup’s work, we see no legal reason why they should not
> participate.
>
>
> —
> Samantha Eisner
> Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, California 90094
> USA
> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <(310)%20578-8631>
>
> From: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> Date: Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:35 AM
> To: Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner at icann.org>, John Jeffrey <
> JJ at ICANN.org>
> Cc: Accountability Staff <accountability-staff at icann.org>, "
> ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
> Subject: Request on Ombuds questions
>
> Dear Samantha and John,
>
> As part of the CCWG-Legal Committee works, we hereby request for an
> expedited opinion from CCWG-Accountability WS2:
>
> Background:
>
> The CCWG-Accountability WS2 Ombusman sub-group is working on recommending
> possible changes to the Office of the Ombudsman as required in the final
> report for WS1 of the CCWG-Accountability.
>
> Given the focus of this sub-group the group working on implementing ATRT2
> recommendations, which includes a requirement for an external review of the
> office of the Ombudsman, has proposed that the CCWG-Accountability WS2
> Ombudsman sub-group take on the responsibility for this evaluation which it
> has accepted to do [with the agreement of the ccwg-WS2 plenary].
>
> The current ICANN Ombudsman Herb Waye and his predecessor are both members
> of the Ombudsman sub-group drafting team.
>
> Question:
>
> Is the current ICANN Ombusman [and his predecessor] placing himself in a
> conflict of interest by participating in the sub-group which will have
> responsibility for the external review of the Office of the Ombudsman? If
> so what should the Ombudsman do to avoid such a conflict (completely recuse
> himself from all aspects or only from making or approving recommendations)?
>
> As the answers to these questions will enable to continue the work of the
> Ombuds Sub-group on different topics, we would kindly ask to have an answer
> to them as soon as possible.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Leon Sanchez
> CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair.
> Saludos,
>
>
>
> León
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-ombudsman mailing list
> Ws2-ombudsman at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-ombudsman/attachments/20161204/4ea74f97/attachment.html>