The creation and eventual demise of temporary sheriffs is instructive. Firstly, terminoliy, and for disambiguation purposes: In the USA, a sheriff is a local criminal law enforcement agent as I understand it. However, in England, a sheriff is an civil (not criminal) officer authorised by the court to collect monies on behalf of judgment creditors. Sheriffs are also informally called a bailiff and equivalent to the Viscounts in Jersey) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheriffs_Are_Coming Confusingly (to the English, at least) in Scotland, a sheriff is a judge. The temporary sheriff in Scotland was a creature of statute. Prior to the devolution of Scotland the power to appoint temporary sheriffs was conferred on the Secretary of State by Parliament in 1981. ppointment by the executive is consistent with independence only if it is supported by adequate guarantees that the appointed judge enjoys security of tenure." See fuller details in the article "The Demise of the Temporary Sherriff" at http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/44-12/1001056.aspx The upshot of this is that there IS a structural issue with the appointment of the Ombudsman, in that he or she holds their office at the discretion of the ICANN Board (in practice, senior staff and officers). At least one Ombudsman has not had their contract renewed. The Ombudsman will, therefore, quite likely have an actual conflict of interest, in that in the interests of having his or her contract renewed he/she will natuarally and possibly unconsciously, give deference to them. Even if there's no actual conflict of interest (which for the reasons set out in Starrs and Chalmers v Ruxton I think there is), I submit that there is undoubtedly a perceived conflict of interest. which needs to be resolved. Counterbalancing this, is the actual nature of the Ombudsman, which appears to have changed in emphasis under each different office-holder. The Ombudman is actually not a decision-maker, and the office is not the office of an independent tribunal -- it's role is to act as mediator, is it not, and seek to promote harmony between disputing parties, rather than a quasi-judicial role.