[Ws2-ombudsman] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.3
Bernard Turcotte
turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
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>
More information about the Ws2-ombudsman
mailing list