[Ws2-ombudsman] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV1.3.3

[farzaneh badii]

Thank you Bernie,

I would like to reiterate my comments in this thread with the hope that my
comments be considered.

I think we need to add to our recommendations.  The report says based on
the survey that it was carried out the ombuds function

• does not however meet all expectations, with a number feeling that it
does not
​ ​
have enough *power or independence*


 As I have argued a number of times, giving the ombuds person a 5 year
contract does not add to their independence! At the moment the ombuds
office is designed in a way that the source of ombuds income is only
through an ICANN contract. The length of this contract does not really make
any difference in the independence of ombuds. As long as the employees only
source of income is the ICANN contract they might not be in a  vacuum where
economic incentives don't play a role.

We
​ ​
need more
​ ​
recommendations
​ ​
for maintaining independence. So I am going to suggest the group to
consider the following:

- The ombuds office should be an office and not a person meaning that it
should be either an external organization that can carry out the task or an
office more than two employees.

- The employees of ombuds office should not mingle and socialize with the
members of ICANN community nor with the board.

- Preferably the ombuds office source of revenue should not be solely
reliant on ICANN contact


As to the lack of power of ombuds, I think we need to highlight which
recommendations can overcome the power problem. While I understand that it
is difficult because ombuds decisions should not be binding, we should
first of all clarify what we mean by nonbinding nature of ombuds decision:
does it mean no legal enforcement or no enforcement within the
organization? I believe it's both. But this is not clear in the documents.
If it's both then we need to have other measures in place to empower the
ombuds office. I don't think this is a procedural/ implementation matter. I
think this should be discussed at this group and we should at least
recommend that the nature of ombuds decisions (whether binding in its
organizational sense) should be clarified. (this can be added to
recommendation 2)

Recommendation 2 also

explains that:
"
Set out the kinds of matters where the Ombuds will usually not intervene –
and
​ ​
where these matters are likely to be referred with the complainant’s
permission;
"

T
his is a good recommendation and prevents ombuds office from arbitrarily
refusing to do something about a complaint. But we should also recommend
that the ombuds office should transparently explain why it has not accepted
certain cases or why it has not done anything about them. This should be
done considering the confidential nature of the process of ombuds but this
confidential nature should not enable the office to arbitrarily reject
complaints.


Thanks


Farzaneh

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Bernard Turcotte <
turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Sebastien has asked that I forward the draft of the report (attached) for
> consideration at the next meeting of the Ombuds sub-group meeting scheduled
> for 1300UTC Monday 11 September.
>
> 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/20170910/17e817bd/attachment.html>