Recommendation 8 - Reconsideration - 1st reading conclusions
Sent on behalf of CoChairs 1. The following concerns will be addressed in implementation: ¥ Concerns raised during comment: i. There is a recommendation that this tool should not be regarded in isolation but rather as one among other mechanisms. ii. • Concern was raised that the ombudsman is not sufficiently equipped and knowledgeable to do substantive evaluation. It is also suggested that an independent party, such as the Ombudsman, provide an initial assessment to the Board as to the merit of any and all Reconsideration Requests. iii. • There is a call for Reconsideration Requests to be transparent and fully communicated to all ICANN stakeholders. Second reading is planned for Thursday, 28 January. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León
Do we have input from the Ombudsman about the second point? On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
*Sent on behalf of CoChairs *
1. The following concerns will be addressed in implementation:
¥ Concerns raised during comment:
i. There is a recommendation that this tool should not be regarded in isolation but rather as one among other mechanisms. ii. • Concern was raised that the ombudsman is not sufficiently equipped and knowledgeable to do substantive evaluation. It is also suggested that an independent party, such as the Ombudsman, provide an initial assessment to the Board as to the merit of any and all Reconsideration Requests. iii. • There is a call for Reconsideration Requests to be transparent and fully communicated to all ICANN stakeholders.
Second reading is planned for Thursday, 28 January.
Best regards
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My concern is that traditionally the Ombudsman is restricted to acting strictly on the basis of fairness. We seem in a number of areas to be attempting to expand his or her remit into that more akin to an Inspector General or Ombudsman plus. I too would be interested in hearing from Chris and his view of this type of an expanded role. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:10, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Do we have input from the Ombudsman about the second point?
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote: Sent on behalf of CoChairs
1. The following concerns will be addressed in implementation: ¥ Concerns raised during comment: i. There is a recommendation that this tool should not be regarded in isolation but rather as one among other mechanisms. ii. • Concern was raised that the ombudsman is not sufficiently equipped and knowledgeable to do substantive evaluation. It is also suggested that an independent party, such as the Ombudsman, provide an initial assessment to the Board as to the merit of any and all Reconsideration Requests. iii. • There is a call for Reconsideration Requests to be transparent and fully communicated to all ICANN stakeholders.
Second reading is planned for Thursday, 28 January.
Best regards
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Alice Jansen -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan