Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #3 – 22 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/2AasAw 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 1. Call Admin and Roll Call-Apologies · Apologies from Asha Hemrajani. 2. Welcome – Opening Remarks · Sebastien Bachollet: Single topic call - back to regular work on the next call. I will produce a document for our next meeting. 3. Presentation of the Ombuds Office by Herb Waye & Chris LaHatte · Herb Waye: running through the presentation (see wiki for presentation). slide topics: Independence (reports to the Board! Should be named by the Board or the NomCom?), Neutrality and Impartiality (there may be a role for the office for equality among groups or give a voice to smaller groups?), Confidentiality (releasing strings of emails can be an issue), Informality (two extremes - cocacola no records, ICANN tracking system), Challenges (more formal makes it more legalistic, more complex and requiring more resources - hope we can get less formal), Future (Ombuds role in policy? maybe ensuring all parties are given a voice - possibly, should have a role for ethics and a code of conduct), Priorities for my new role as Ombuds (in-reach to community, give a voice to everyone and advocate for ethical behaviour), Interaction (how should the Ombuds interact with the other mechainisms in ICANN?) · Chris LaHatte: We have to be clear on the concept that an Ombuds is a mediator and not a decision maker as some are suggesting in the chat (see below) - this would completely miss the point. The Ombuds can only suggest they can never tell anyone to do anything - which is why informality is so important. 4. Q & A · Sebastien Bachollet: Any questions not put in the chat? No - closing comments from HW. · Herb Waye: Hope this will spur discussion and want to state that we wish to work with this group to help it along. (Note: Below are all chat inputs) · Sivasubramanian M 2: Sebastien, I have a certain conflict of interest in participating in this specific sub-group. I would submit a revised SOP to WS2, repeating information about the conflict of interest, also stating that my participation is in the broader interest. · Sivasubramanian M 2: Q to the Ombudsman: Did the Ombudsman mention a "contract", is the Ombudmsan a contracted functionary in ICANN? Does the framework of a "contract" fit into the stature of this office? 2. In examining "independance" it is also pertinent to examine the 'position' of the Ombudsman - how the Ombudman is placed in the ICANN organizational structure. Herb Waye: yes a contract. The second question is for this group. · Sivasubramanian M 2: Q: Why isn't the process of the Ombudsman an appeal process? Why these limitations? Why only the process? This is the electronic equivallent of reading meta tags without going into the content. · jose arce: in small issues would not be a problem having a hire Ombudsman. but what happend in important isuues that involved ICANN's interest? would be better to have an dispute resolution office integrated with volunteers of the community, maybe appoinyñt3d by the NONCOM? · Mike Silber 2: the ombud could refer to a review /appeal process on behalf of the community is profound unfairness is found · Mike Silber 2: *if* · jose arce: just thinking quikly I think that depend on the objetivies and the funtions of the office. @Siva agree with the variation · Chris LaHatte: +1 Mike and Farzanah · Sivasubramanian M 2: Q: Does the discussion on "informality" arise from existing documented conventions? Or is this a new topic introduced from this point? · Sivasubramanian M 2: @ MIke Agree that the notion of a 'bench' is akin to that of an IRP. But the key difference between an IRP and a bench of Ombudsman is that the bench would be an internal bench, that would act an internal and fair manner, and minimise the need for ICANN and other parties to seek external mediation. · Sivasubramanian M 2: and limit the need to go to court · Mike Silber 2: disagree completely. implies differences between individuals. the office should be consistent · Mike Silber 2: it is not a decision maker between adversaries. · Chris LaHatte: Ombuds is a facilitator not a decision maker · Chris LaHatte: mediation is our tool, which builds on decisions of the parties, not the Ombuds · Farzaneh Badii: Chris, Herb, I think we need to explain clearly the difference between ombuds and other dis res mechanisms · Farzaneh Badii: when we discuss informality we are going to discuss process. we are not going to talk about formality of outcome. · Farzaneh Badii: in my opinion · Mike Silber 2: Farzaneh +1 5. Next Meeting & AOB · Sebastien Bachollet: Adjourned - talk next week. Documents Presented · Ombuds Presentation 160822.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61605592/Ombuds%20Presentat...>