[Ws2-ombudsman] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-OmbudsPublicComments-january2018-SummaryandDiscussion

Sun Feb 4 23:52:10 UTC 2018

Thank you Bernard,

I need to discuss Sebastien responses to some of NCSG comments.

NCSG says here that :

"The NCSG believes that the report is missing one very important point
> about independence and accountability
> of Ombuds office. We think that under no circumstances should the
> Ombudspersons socialise and befriend
> community members. This is a very obvious independence element which,
> unfortunately, has not made it into
> the report. We suggest the subgroup to consider the situation when the
> decision maker of someone’s case at
> a social event is talking and smiling at the party, which has a complaint
> filed against them. Independence is
> seriously affected by social encounters and interactions. We believe that
> the final report should include a
> recommendation for the Ombudsman’s office to consult the community to
> establish appropriate rules around
> socialization and interactions so/as not to compromise their official role
> as an oversight mechanism."

Sebastien responds that this was not supported by the group. Yes, however
when asked the external evaluator, the external evaluator agreed that
socializing with the ombuds might be in fact problematic. NCSG here is only
stating to come up with an appropriate framework for such socialization. I
think the group should consider this suggestion seriously specially after
the external evaluator has actually agreed that there is a point to it.

 I need to also clarify NCSG   comment on 5.3:

5.3 In regards to recommendation 4, which requires the
> community to respond to the Ombuds office in due time
> with reasoning, we believe such a responsibility should
> be mutual. The timeliness of the Ombuds Office actions
> should be preserved (as is indicated in
> recommendation 5) and the office must provide
> reasons for its decision. Also, if the responding party
> requests for additional extension in case of exceptional
> circumstances as mentioned in the Recommendation
> 4, the additional extension granted by the Ombuds
> Office should not be more than 30 days.
>

Sebastien responded that there is no divergence. Yes, there is no
divergence as  it is not even mentioned (recommendation 5 includes
timeline but does not include reasoning and it's more about KPI than
timeline for ombuds office to respond to queries and complaints) .
recommendation 4 does not set a time limit for the Ombuds to actually
respond and it does not say that the ombuds should provide reasoning for
the steps it takes in its communications. If this is not already in the
ombuds procedural framework, then it should be considered.

Please note that I am not insisting on changes based on NCSG comments but I
thought I clarify to resolve any misunderstanding and provide further
details.

Farzaneh

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
> wrote:

> All,
>
> Please find attached, as promised, an updated version of the document
> where Sebastien has included his input on sections 9 to 13 where
> appropriate.
>
> Please note we are still short several participation confirmations to
> confirm we can hold the call 6 February 1300 UTC. Confirmations are due by
> 23:59 Sunday 4 February - if there are not enough confirmations the call
> will be cancelled.
>
> Thank You.
>
> 
> Bernard Turcotte
> ICANN Staff support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Please find attached a PDF document which recaps the discussions on the
>> comments from comments 1.01 to 8.04.
>>
>> For comments 1.0X (general comments) the discussion was free flowing and
>> wide ranging and as such I have only left the comments from Sebastien in
>> the document - please read the transcript relating to this.
>>
>> For comments 2.01 to 8.04 - if there was a discussion in the transcript I
>> have tried to capture the essential of this and it will be preceded by
>> *20180122* which was the date of our last meeting.
>>
>> We are scheduled to complete looking at comments 9.01 to 13.01 at our
>> next meeting which is scheduled for 6 February 1300 UTC - I will note that
>> I currently only have 3 positive, even if some tentative, responses to
>> attend this meeting. If we do not obtain 5 confirmation by 23:59 UTC Sunday
>> 4 February we will be forced to cancel this call. As such if you are
>> planning on attending this call please confirm to the list or the
>> Acct-Staff email address.
>>
>> Thank You
>>
>> 
>> Bernard Turcotte
>> ICANN Staff support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180204/10545b4a/attachment.html>