Hi, I agree with this. We should not expand the function beyond what is normal for the ombudsman function and should not give the role a determinative role in accountability escalation. While commenting on the function of the ombudsman I think we also need to anlayse, during WS2, the relationship of the Ombudsman with the staff and Board. We should also look into various discussions on the term length for those who occupy the lead ombudsman role. One of the primary characteristics of a Ombudsman is their separation from the corporation. A lot of elements go into this, including the renewal of contract and any possible limits on the number of times a contract can be renewed before the Ombudsman becomes a staff member for all intents and purposes. There is a lot of literature on the theory and practice of the ombudsman function that those working on this issue in WS2 should become familiar with. avri On 31-Jan-16 11:29, Greg Shatan wrote:

I don't think capacity is the issue.

I think it's critical that we restrict the Ombudsman (which I always took to refer to the function rather than the person(s) filling it) to the defined roles outlined by Chris LaHatte in his recent email.

If we want an office that goes beyond those roles, we'll need to call it something else and staff it accordingly.

Greg

On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:

Hello All,

In terms of this statement:

“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. “

It is worth considering that the Ombudsman is a function rather than just a single person. At the moment there is more than one person involved in providing the Ombudsman function. In addition to Chris LaHatte, Herb Waye has also provide adjunct services.

I suggest using the text "Ombudsman Function" where references are made to the Ombudsman in the CCWG report.

It is possible in future that we increase the number of people and skills available in the Ombudsman Function to meet the needs specified in the CCWG proposal, and as a result of further improvements resulting from work stream 2.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> 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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I agree with Greg. Chris, in his post, touched upon some of the role expansion noted by Bruce in an earlier post, noted an Ombudsman's role in "shuttle diplomacy" but also stressed the centrality of the concept of fairness in the Ombudsman's decision making process. Given the number of areas some have proposed the Ombudsman be involved with I do agree with Greg we may be talking about a position that may be a bit broader than that typically ascribed to an Ombudsman and may need a new title with the expanded function. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:32 PM To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "CCWG Accountability" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Recommendation 8 - Final draft version for legal review - co-chair approval requested I don't think capacity is the issue. I think it's critical that we restrict the Ombudsman (which I always took to refer to the function rather than the person(s) filling it) to the defined roles outlined by Chris LaHatte in his recent email. If we want an office that goes beyond those roles, we'll need to call it something else and staff it accordingly. Greg On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All, In terms of this statement: "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. " It is worth considering that the Ombudsman is a function rather than just a single person. At the moment there is more than one person involved in providing the Ombudsman function. In addition to Chris LaHatte, Herb Waye has also provide adjunct services. I suggest using the text "Ombudsman Function" where references are made to the Ombudsman in the CCWG report. It is possible in future that we increase the number of people and skills available in the Ombudsman Function to meet the needs specified in the CCWG proposal, and as a result of further improvements resulting from work stream 2. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community