This is a perfectly legitimate and normal Ombudsman role...it would only require a slightly expanded mandate, powers, and resources. in my view, coming from a country with independent Officers of Parliament who perform the roles of Auditor General, information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner, Elections oversight etc. This would be a normal choice. In our provinces, it is not unusual for the Ombudsman to wear a number of hats, and it seems to work well. ICANN introduces a heavy dose of competition into the mix, but anyone who has done dispute resolution knows that is always present. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: David Cake Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:06 AM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability Eberhard has a point. There are legitimate reasons for staff to want to not answer some questions - some personnel issues should remain confidential, some security issues should have disclosure delayed until the problem has been fixed or mitigated, etc. The Ombudsman should have access to any internal document, and the discretion and training to decide what is reasonable to release. Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this role? Regards David (my first post to CCWG Accountability - hi everybody) On 16 Jul 2015, at 2:03 pm, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Cool, another Ombudsman. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jul 16, 2015, at 04:05, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: How about an independent inspector general? [...] _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community