[Ws2-ombudsman] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.3

Wed Oct 4 15:28:05 UTC 2017

Farzaneh,

will try to get a response.

B

On Oct 4, 2017 11:10, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sorry I cannot attend this meeting, am traveling.
>
> I have a question from Phil, other than considering a fixed term contract,
> how do other recommendations contribute to the independence of the ombuds
> office?  Any other recommendation could be added or needed to be added to
> enhance independence?
>
> If we can highlight how each recommendation contributes to independence,
> efficiency, accountability, etc would be great.
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> In preparation for out call in a few hours Sebastien asked me to
>> circulate the following materials:
>>
>>
>>    - Version 2.3 of the draft recommendations. This includes the
>>    suggestions made at the plenary as well as Farzane's suggestions cut and
>>    pasted from her email regarding recommendation 9. Please note the changes
>>    to the draft recommendations are, for now, only in the executive summary
>>    for discussion by the sub-group and that all changes in the document are in
>>    red-line.
>>    - Sebastien also reached out to our external evaluator for his
>>    comments regarding our discussions on recommendations 8 and 9 and you will
>>    find his points here below for your consideration. These comments were made
>>    considering a copy of Farzneh's proposed amendments.
>>
>> Look forward to discussing these items at our meeting scheduled for 0500
>> UTC 5 October.
>>
>> Bernard Turcotte
>> ICANN Staff support to CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>>
>> Responses from Phil Khoury:
>>
>> A few comments below – hope they are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. The ICANN Ombuds function is quite unusual – it is neither an
>>    in-house Ombuds, nor a Government Ombuds, nor an Industry or sector Ombuds
>>    – so very difficult to provide solid comparisons with ‘industry best
>>    practice’.
>>    2. Reflecting this, the Panel proposed is something of a hybrid – a
>>    little like a governing body, a little like a stakeholder advisory group, a
>>    little like an expert advisory committee.  It is intended to provide a
>>    breadth of perspectives to act as a sounding board and wise counsel to the
>>    Ombuds Office – and to advise the Board (as the decision-maker) on key
>>    matters it must decide about the Ombuds Office.
>>    3. To our knowledge there is no directly comparable existing panel.
>>    The Energy and Water Ombudsman of Queensland (EWOQ) is a government
>>    (statutory) body which is nonetheless funded by industry fees and levies.
>>    The relevant Minister of the State Government is the governing authority –
>>    but with no say in operations or complaint decision-making.  He or she
>>    takes advice from an Advisory Council – on approving an annual budget, on
>>    appointing an Ombudsman and on any proposals for change to the law.  Not
>>    quite the same as the proposed ICANN Panel – but with some similarities.
>>    4. It is important to recognise that Independence is only one aspect
>>    of an effective Ombuds function – and it must be considered in balance with
>>    other objectives such as credibility, accessibility, efficiency,
>>    accountability and so forth.  To illustrate, a private legal mediator with
>>    experience in family law matters and mid-level commercial disputes could be
>>    contracted to consider ICANN complaints – they may get top marks for
>>    independence however they would likely get very poor marks for background
>>    knowledge, technical credibility and accessibility.  (It takes more than
>>    independence to achieve recommendations or decisions that will be accepted).
>>    5. We considered the idea of an external mediation/law firm and
>>    rejected it because of what we considered was its poor fit with the ICANN
>>    environment (norms vary widely across the community, rapidly evolving, only
>>    some aspects governed by black letter law, need for intimate understanding
>>    of cultures and interests of different segments of the community, etc).
>>    Our experience of external ombuds functions such as these is that they
>>    become very legalistic (to compensate for lack of knowledge) and almost
>>    invariably have much higher rejection rates (rejecting the complaint).  The
>>    view becomes not what was “fair in all the circumstances”, but “did the
>>    person or entity that is complained about breach any rule”.
>>    6. Fixed term contracts and remuneration were only considered to be
>>    one small part of the independence framework – but an obvious one that
>>    needed fixing.
>>    7. Socializing is, I agree with FB, a problematic issue.  We would
>>    not support a blanket ban on the Ombuds Office staff circulating at
>>    Conferences and participating in what I would call ‘light touch’ social
>>    events.  It is valuable for the Ombuds staff faces to be known and for them
>>    to create an impression of approachability.  It is not however, appropriate
>>    for them to be seen as a regular ‘member’ of one or other community group
>>    or faction, nor aligned closely with staff or Board members, etc.  That is
>>    a matter of applying the appropriate mature, professional behaviours –
>>    talking to all, circulating around the ‘room’, avoiding late night drinking
>>    sessions, absenting oneself from sensitive discussions, not discussing
>>    specific complaints - in other words, engaging but maintaining a
>>    professional ‘distance’.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that is of some help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil Khoury
>>
>> Managing Director
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171004/c599b1bd/attachment-0001.html>