Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #8 - 26 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CgG4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #8 | 13:00 UTC | Monday, 26 September (including relevant portions of the chat): Roll call - Welcome - Opening remarks * Sebastien Bachollet: Review of agenda - no objections. 11 participants at start of call. Feed-Back from the WS2 plenary (Sept 20, 2016) and prep of the next WS2 plenary (Oct 4, 2016) * Sebastien Bachollet: unfortunately, there was no time available for input from this group. Exchange with the Transparency DT (Michael Karanicolas) * Michael Karanicolas: There seems to be much overlap between our work in these groups. When there are issues with the transparency the Ombudsman is the key element in oversight. (presentation of slide) Evaluate Ombudsman independence and competency for these other roles. Independence, powers and expertise. Requesting authority from the Board prior to starting an investigation could be an issue? Expanding the Ombudsman role to be more pro-active to promote transparency internally and externally. Promotion of the Ombuds office. role of Ombudsman vs. Human Rights. Would like ICANN transparency to be more like government vs private industry. * Herb Waye: Good points and key for me is formality vs informality. A commissioner is another role. * Farzaneh Badii: I am in doubt of pro active role of ombudsman (bullet point 4). Agree with HW. * Michael Karanicolas: formal vs informal roles for Ombudsman is an argument we hear often. This can be a false argument - having formal powers can give the Ombudsman informal processes more weight. Cost is a fair consideration and should be looked at. Voice of the people vs watchdog? again fair question but we have to ask the question if ICANN needs a watchdog. * Chris LaHatte: note that Ombuds only needs board consent where there is an own motion investigation, but otherwise no need for consent for a complaint from community * Herb Waye Ombuds: Ombuds should promote diversity, ethical behaviour, human rights, and fairness. * Chris LaHatte: also note that Ombuds has full access to all documents, so can review any DIDP in any event with existing powers * Herb Waye: Re watchdog role - let us remember we have the independent review - would it not be worth discussion this with them? relative to requesting permission from the Board - for the record we have never been refused permission. It is more advising the Board vs requesting permission and could be reviewed. * Michael Karanicolas: Hm - I hadn't realized the Ombudsman could move forward independently. Thanks very much for clarifying. * Asha Hemrajani: Good points from MK. I note that the Ombudsman has access to all documents internally. Also note that a mediation skill would be important for the Ombudsman. Like the idea of the Ombudsman promoting his services more widely. * Michael Karanicolas: @Farzaneh, I think he means that for the board to refuse the Ombudsman's request to open an investigation would be a very controversial thing. * Michael Karanicolas: The power to say no is there, but that for them to use it would attract a lot of negative attention. * Herb Waye Ombuds: Yes relationship with Board is very good and positive, it is not controversial in any way. We all have ICANN and community best interests in mind * Michael Karanicolas: Sure - that would be * Sebastien Bachollet: thanks to MK for his presentation. We can arrange to have someone from our group participate in the Transparency meetings if requested. * Farzaneh Badii: can the Ombudsman move on an investigation without a complaint? * Herb Waye: On systemic issues we can move forward without actually having a complainant - but we need to advise the Board - unfortunately the Bylaws say approval from the Board. We have to report to the Board with the results. * Asha Hemrajani: MK what point would be your priority? * Michael Karanicolas: Examine specific role of the Ombudsman vs DIDP appeals - and need to understand the exact role of the IRP in ICANN. Also what is the role of the Ombudsman in appeals processes and if they are equipped for doing this. Discussion of the following items from the document * (not discussed) Stress Tests with Steve DelBianco and CLO * Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Little to say about Stress Tests and the Ombudsman. There are only two ST13 and 34 (presentation of these). Questions? * Herb Waye: On ST34 it is important to bring balance to the smaller groups going forward. There are some structures in place that restrict participation. ATRT2 - review of the office * Sebastien Bachollet: Still waiting on response from the Board to the letter from the CCWG-Accountability. Avri Doria any new inputs? * Avri Doria: No new information from Board. We may not need to wait and perform a gap analysis. * Asha Hemrajani: Will check with Board on the status of the Board response. ATRT2 - ICANN employees * (not discussed) PTI * Sebastien Bachollet: let us look at the response from ICANN Legal. * Herb Waye: Memo clearly states that PTI clients can have recourse to the Ombudsman. * Sebastien Bachollet: are we satisfied with this response? How do we deal with anything that is not names related? Next meeting #9 - Oct 3, 2016 Documents Presented * CCWG_WS2_DT_Ombuds_#8_V1.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62390538/CCWG_WS2_DT_Ombuds...>
