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

Tue Feb 6 00:27:48 UTC 2018

I agree with the socialization. That the Ombus can attend ICANN social gatherings. Not to allow it, would be to doubt the responsibility and impartiality of the designated person.

If that designated person wishes to break the rules, and not perform their duties, they would meet privately with whomever they wish. And nobody would find out.

Regards

Alberto

De: Ws2-ombudsman [mailto:ws2-ombudsman-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de farzaneh badii
Enviado el: domingo, 04 de febrero de 2018 08:52 p.m.
Para: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
CC: ws2-ombudsman at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Ws2-ombudsman] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-OmbudsPublicComments-january2018-SummaryandDiscussion

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-ombudsman at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman

---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-ombudsman/attachments/20180205/0b8da1ea/attachment.html>