IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting
19th September 2017, Dear Co-Chairs, The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group. As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG. I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents. All the best IOO Sub Group Rapporteur, Sebastien Bachollet Attached: IOO first Report External evaluator’s final report
Thank you Seb. I had a cursory review and I don't see what I have recommended is implemented or been considered. I could not properly attend all the the Ombuds group meetings but I don't think that means my comments should not be considered. I have to raise my concerns which I have reiterated over and over in that group and seems like not many people agree with me, so I might have to file a dissent but I'd like to raise my concerns here as well: 1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem. 2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence. 3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions) I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments. Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary. Best Farzaneh Farzaneh On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
1. IOO first Report 2. External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
Dear Farzaneh Dear Sébastien Dear All Even though I have not followed the works of the group but I am very much concerned our inability to maintain or to ensure the independence of the Ombudsman. I therefore fully and whole heartedly support view points of Farzaneh I do not think we should jump into final conclusion send a report which is not yet condensed Please seriously take into account get valid points Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Sep 2017, at 19:53, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Seb.
I had a cursory review and I don't see what I have recommended is implemented or been considered. I could not properly attend all the the Ombuds group meetings but I don't think that means my comments should not be considered.
I have to raise my concerns which I have reiterated over and over in that group and seems like not many people agree with me, so I might have to file a dissent but I'd like to raise my concerns here as well:
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary.
Best
Farzaneh
Farzaneh
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote: 19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
IOO first Report External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points. 1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem. 2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence. 3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions) I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
Rather than recount arguments about the various issues surrounding an ombudspersons office, I will suggest a short and thoughtful read by an experience ombudsperson who served at a University I once taught at. It is a short and thoughtful reflection. See:http://www.agreeinc.com/ombudsman.html <http://www.agreeinc.com/ombudsman.html> The multistakeholder constituency basis of ICANN suggests some interesting (but not too challenging) variations on parts of what is discussed in the article. Sam Lanfranco On 9/19/2017 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Excellent resource, thank you for this Sam, appreciate it. On Sep 20, 2017 08:33, "Sam Lanfranco" <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:
Rather than recount arguments about the various issues surrounding an ombudspersons office, I will suggest a short and thoughtful read by an experience ombudsperson who served at a University I once taught at. It is a short and thoughtful reflection. See: http://www.agreeinc.com/ ombudsman.html The multistakeholder constituency basis of ICANN suggests some interesting (but not too challenging) variations on parts of what is discussed in the article.
Sam Lanfranco
On 9/19/2017 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <+1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <+1%20416-816-2852>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi all, Just to chime in - #3 really seems like a good point, to me. I could certainly see a potential complainant for, say, harassment, being deterred from reporting if they saw the Ombudsman drinking and socializing with the subject of their complaint. Though it may make the job less fun - I do think it's important to keep distance when one has such a position. #2 also seems very important... but also challenging. Having an external 3rd party provide ombudsman services may not solve this problem since, presumably, they would still need to be contracted in by ICANN, leaving them equally subject to influence - and potentially even more so. Imagine the Ombudsman was someone seconded over from some KPMG-like organization. Wouldn't their higher ups pressure them to avoid rocking the boat, and jeopardizing the contract? I am personally more accustomed to such challenges in a public sector context where, indeed, longer and fixed-term contracts (security of tenure) are the preferred means of ensuring that an official (like, say, human rights commissioners) won't be swayed by political forces, along with making the official difficult to fire through oversight of termination proceedings and strong and specific requirements for cause (incapacity, missing a certain number of meetings, demonstrated incompetence, etc.). Just some thoughts. Thanks of course to Sebastien for his excellent work on this, and to Farzi for bringing these issues up. Michael Karanicolas On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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.
I am only a participant. However, this seems to me to be a little " over the top" in misundertanding the obligation to be independent in decision and not attending ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot allow any ICANN staff, including the Senior staff, supporting staff and Board to engage with the community, as they will be "infected" by us. I know I am a winsome personality, but I note with some regret that no one ever changed their view after encountering me at a breakfast, or over a social event. I must need to improve my powers of persuasion. Perhaps I can study DUNE, and seek to achieve some kind of magical powers, where if one has a drink or food in my presence, suddenly they are converted to my "view". How about this: no ICANN staff should accept a paid drink, or meal from a member of the community Full stop. No ICANN staff should discuss pending policy positions -- WAIT, isn't it important for the ICANN staff to listen to the community. BUT, again, the Ombudsman is not ICANN staff. so? The Ombudsman should buy his/her own coffee, drinks, dinner, etc, if they happen to attend events where such costs occur. HMMM. The Ombudsman should be independently funded, and the office of the Ombudsman should be required to NOT discuss any pending or ongoing procedure that they are engaged in. The Ombudsman's office should attend, without offering comment, as many of the ICANN events as possible, and attend as many sessions on site as possible, while fulfilling their obligations as the independent Ombudsman. ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:16 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: CCWG accountability WS2; ws2-ombudsman@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting Hi all, Just to chime in - #3 really seems like a good point, to me. I could certainly see a potential complainant for, say, harassment, being deterred from reporting if they saw the Ombudsman drinking and socializing with the subject of their complaint. Though it may make the job less fun - I do think it's important to keep distance when one has such a position. #2 also seems very important... but also challenging. Having an external 3rd party provide ombudsman services may not solve this problem since, presumably, they would still need to be contracted in by ICANN, leaving them equally subject to influence - and potentially even more so. Imagine the Ombudsman was someone seconded over from some KPMG-like organization. Wouldn't their higher ups pressure them to avoid rocking the boat, and jeopardizing the contract? I am personally more accustomed to such challenges in a public sector context where, indeed, longer and fixed-term contracts (security of tenure) are the preferred means of ensuring that an official (like, say, human rights commissioners) won't be swayed by political forces, along with making the official difficult to fire through oversight of termination proceedings and strong and specific requirements for cause (incapacity, missing a certain number of meetings, demonstrated incompetence, etc.). Just some thoughts. Thanks of course to Sebastien for his excellent work on this, and to Farzi for bringing these issues up. Michael Karanicolas On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> mm.icann.org Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> mm.icann.org Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
I am only a participant too. Work on WG at ICANN has several principles. One of the main ones is the consensus, and among others the fulfillment of the schedules. I believe that this subgroup has complied with these two principles. If there is dissent after this, and you have not participated in the moments in which the decisions have been made, I think they should make known who it corresponds to, but not change the consensus achieved within the working group Maybe there should be a procedure so that when a deadline has expired, and a consensus version has already been delivered, someone who could not be present when that consensus was formed, can send their opinion. This does not break the consensus reached and who has to decide also has that opinion of the minority. Otherwise no WG would achieve its purpose and the debate would be extended for a long time. Best regards Alberto De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Marilyn Cade Enviado el: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:23 PM Para: Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> CC: ws2-ombudsman@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; CCWG accountability WS2 <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting I am only a participant. However, this seems to me to be a little " over the top" in misundertanding the obligation to be independent in decision and not attending ICANN. Otherwise, we cannot allow any ICANN staff, including the Senior staff, supporting staff and Board to engage with the community, as they will be "infected" by us. I know I am a winsome personality, but I note with some regret that no one ever changed their view after encountering me at a breakfast, or over a social event. I must need to improve my powers of persuasion. Perhaps I can study DUNE, and seek to achieve some kind of magical powers, where if one has a drink or food in my presence, suddenly they are converted to my "view". How about this: no ICANN staff should accept a paid drink, or meal from a member of the community Full stop. No ICANN staff should discuss pending policy positions -- WAIT, isn't it important for the ICANN staff to listen to the community. BUT, again, the Ombudsman is not ICANN staff. so? The Ombudsman should buy his/her own coffee, drinks, dinner, etc, if they happen to attend events where such costs occur. HMMM. The Ombudsman should be independently funded, and the office of the Ombudsman should be required to NOT discuss any pending or ongoing procedure that they are engaged in. The Ombudsman's office should attend, without offering comment, as many of the ICANN events as possible, and attend as many sessions on site as possible, while fulfilling their obligations as the independent Ombudsman. _____ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org <mailto:michael@law-democracy.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:16 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: CCWG accountability WS2; ws2-ombudsman@icann.org <mailto:ws2-ombudsman@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting Hi all, Just to chime in - #3 really seems like a good point, to me. I could certainly see a potential complainant for, say, harassment, being deterred from reporting if they saw the Ombudsman drinking and socializing with the subject of their complaint. Though it may make the job less fun - I do think it's important to keep distance when one has such a position. #2 also seems very important... but also challenging. Having an external 3rd party provide ombudsman services may not solve this problem since, presumably, they would still need to be contracted in by ICANN, leaving them equally subject to influence - and potentially even more so. Imagine the Ombudsman was someone seconded over from some KPMG-like organization. Wouldn't their higher ups pressure them to avoid rocking the boat, and jeopardizing the contract? I am personally more accustomed to such challenges in a public sector context where, indeed, longer and fixed-term contracts (security of tenure) are the preferred means of ensuring that an official (like, say, human rights commissioners) won't be swayed by political forces, along with making the official difficult to fire through oversight of termination proceedings and strong and specific requirements for cause (incapacity, missing a certain number of meetings, demonstrated incompetence, etc.). Just some thoughts. Thanks of course to Sebastien for his excellent work on this, and to Farzi for bringing these issues up. Michael Karanicolas On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page mm.icann.org Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page mm.icann.org Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
Hello We had a part of the WS2 Diversity insertion at the end of the report which portrayed the view of some members of the group exactly on staff role towards this work. So it could be an interesting path to follow here. I agree w/ the points raised on ombudsperson work too. Best, Renata On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote:
I am only a participant too.
Work on WG at ICANN has several principles. One of the main ones is the consensus, and among others the fulfillment of the schedules.
I believe that this subgroup has complied with these two principles.
If there is dissent after this, and you have not participated in the moments in which the decisions have been made, I think they should make known who it corresponds to, but not change the consensus achieved within the working group
Maybe there should be a procedure so that when a deadline has expired, and a consensus version has already been delivered, someone who could not be present when that consensus was formed, can send their opinion.
This does not break the consensus reached and who has to decide also has that opinion of the minority.
Otherwise no WG would achieve its purpose and the debate would be extended for a long time.
Best regards
Alberto
*De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Marilyn Cade *Enviado el:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:23 PM *Para:* Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> *CC:* ws2-ombudsman@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; CCWG accountability WS2 <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting
I am only a participant.
However, this seems to me to be a little " over the top" in misundertanding the obligation to be independent in decision and not attending ICANN.
Otherwise, we cannot allow any ICANN staff, including the Senior staff, supporting staff and Board to engage with the community, as they will be "infected" by us.
I know I am a winsome personality, but I note with some regret that no one ever changed their view after encountering me at a breakfast, or over a social event. I must need to improve my powers of persuasion. Perhaps I can study DUNE, and seek to achieve some kind of magical powers, where if one has a drink or food in my presence, suddenly they are converted to my "view".
How about this: no ICANN staff should accept a paid drink, or meal from a member of the community
Full stop.
No ICANN staff should discuss pending policy positions -- WAIT, isn't it important for the ICANN staff to listen to the community. BUT, again, the Ombudsman is not ICANN staff. so?
The Ombudsman should buy his/her own coffee, drinks, dinner, etc, if they happen to attend events where such costs occur.
HMMM.
The Ombudsman should be independently funded, and the office of the Ombudsman should be required to NOT discuss any pending or ongoing procedure that they are engaged in.
The Ombudsman's office should attend, without offering comment, as many of the ICANN events as possible, and attend as many sessions on site as possible, while fulfilling their obligations as the independent Ombudsman.
------------------------------
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:16 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* CCWG accountability WS2; ws2-ombudsman@icann.org; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-ombudsman] IOO WS2 Sub Group first Report to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 for consideration at Sept Meeting
Hi all,
Just to chime in - #3 really seems like a good point, to me. I could certainly see a potential complainant for, say, harassment, being deterred from reporting if they saw the Ombudsman drinking and socializing with the subject of their complaint. Though it may make the job less fun - I do think it's important to keep distance when one has such a position.
#2 also seems very important... but also challenging. Having an external 3rd party provide ombudsman services may not solve this problem since, presumably, they would still need to be contracted in by ICANN, leaving them equally subject to influence - and potentially even more so. Imagine the Ombudsman was someone seconded over from some KPMG-like organization. Wouldn't their higher ups pressure them to avoid rocking the boat, and jeopardizing the contract? I am personally more accustomed to such challenges in a public sector context where, indeed, longer and fixed-term contracts (security of tenure) are the preferred means of ensuring that an official (like, say, human rights commissioners) won't be swayed by political forces, along with making the official difficult to fire through oversight of termination proceedings and strong and specific requirements for cause (incapacity, missing a certain number of meetings, demonstrated incompetence, etc.).
Just some thoughts. Thanks of course to Sebastien for his excellent work on this, and to Farzi for bringing these issues up.
Michael Karanicolas
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
I find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with these points.
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
mm.icann.org
Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community Info Page <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
mm.icann.org
Accountability-Cross-Community -- Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group About Accountability-Cross-Community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with Farzaneh. These are important reforms we are *supposed* to be doing here. Not merely window dressing to meet a deadline. Thanks, Robin
On Sep 19, 2017, at 8:53 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Seb.
I had a cursory review and I don't see what I have recommended is implemented or been considered. I could not properly attend all the the Ombuds group meetings but I don't think that means my comments should not be considered.
I have to raise my concerns which I have reiterated over and over in that group and seems like not many people agree with me, so I might have to file a dissent but I'd like to raise my concerns here as well:
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary.
Best
Farzaneh
Farzaneh
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>> wrote: 19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
IOO first Report External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
Is this report now open for comments? Tremendous amount of work, congratulations, but I have quite a few comments. Kind regards Stephanie Perrin On 2017-09-19 18:52, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree with Farzaneh. These are important reforms we are *supposed* to be doing here. Not merely window dressing to meet a deadline.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 19, 2017, at 8:53 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you Seb.
I had a cursory review and I don't see what I have recommended is implemented or been considered. I could not properly attend all the the Ombuds group meetings but I don't think that means my comments should not be considered.
I have to raise my concerns which I have reiterated over and over in that group and seems like not many people agree with me, so I might have to file a dissent but I'd like to raise my concerns here as well:
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary.
Best
Farzaneh
Farzaneh
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>> wrote:
19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18^th of September 2017 at the 30^th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
1. IOO first Report 2. External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Interesting comments. A few comments of mine inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 19, 2017 4:54 PM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote: : 1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem. SO: Sorry do you mind stating what the problem is here? However I see some benefit with giving the ombudsperson job guarantee. Where I come from there is some level of job security for confirmed govt staff in that you can just get dismissed by any head of the govt org without proper hearing. Perhaps there can be an exception for the ombudsperson that the decision to terminate his/her contract will include the community and not just left to ICANN HR/management alone. 2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence. SO: Fine with the making it an office, but I am not sure we will be solving all independence issues by giving the role to an external organization. It may indeed create so much more problem than ever imagine(it's such a small world). I actually think a path of external in this context might further create mis-trust as I don't see how that guarantees trust unless we are saying that the external organization will also be paid by an external body and not by ICANN. Even that will only isn't enough to guarantee independence. 3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions) SO: Okay I think this is way too much. What exactly are we trying to turn that person holding the office into? A ghost or something like that ;-) If he can't socialize with the community how does he/she know/learn about the community? Ofcourse it's fine to expect some level of decorum from such person just like one expects of ICANN leaders like the Board, SO/AC leaders et all. Regards I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments. Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary. Best Farzaneh Farzaneh On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
1. IOO first Report 2. External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Correction: "can just" meant to write "can't just" Hopefully my signature already covered that :-) Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sep 20, 2017 10:59 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting comments. A few comments of mine inline:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Sep 19, 2017 4:54 PM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
:
1. I don't think we can solve the problem of independence by giving the ombudspersons a 5 year contract. I have provided my reasons before. If by 5 years fixed contract you mean the Ombuds office as an entity should be given a fixed term contract that is fine. But ombudspersons getting fixed five-year contract won't solve the problem.
SO: Sorry do you mind stating what the problem is here? However I see some benefit with giving the ombudsperson job guarantee. Where I come from there is some level of job security for confirmed govt staff in that you can just get dismissed by any head of the govt org without proper hearing.
Perhaps there can be an exception for the ombudsperson that the decision to terminate his/her contract will include the community and not just left to ICANN HR/management alone.
2. Ombuds has to be an office and not a person. At the moment it's a person. I think to maintain the independence of the office, we need to have preferably an external organization that provides ombuds services and its revenue is not only dependent on ICANN. That way we can ensure independence.
SO: Fine with the making it an office, but I am not sure we will be solving all independence issues by giving the role to an external organization. It may indeed create so much more problem than ever imagine(it's such a small world). I actually think a path of external in this context might further create mis-trust as I don't see how that guarantees trust unless we are saying that the external organization will also be paid by an external body and not by ICANN. Even that will only isn't enough to guarantee independence.
3. Under no circumstances, the ombudspersons should socialize and befriend community members ( this is a very obvious independence element, have you ever encountered the decision maker of your case at a social event talking and smiling at the party you filed a complaint against? It is written in first year legal text books that independence is very much affected by social encounters and interactions)
SO: Okay I think this is way too much. What exactly are we trying to turn that person holding the office into? A ghost or something like that ;-) If he can't socialize with the community how does he/she know/learn about the community? Ofcourse it's fine to expect some level of decorum from such person just like one expects of ICANN leaders like the Board, SO/AC leaders et all.
Regards
I don't think the current recommendations are sufficient enough to expand the ombuds office mandate. But I do need written reasons for not considering the points I have made. It is simply not enough that the WS2 group on Ombuds did not agree with my comments.
Please let me know what the process would be to file a dissent or if we can discuss it during the plenary.
Best
Farzaneh
Farzaneh
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Sebicann Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr
wrote:
19th September 2017,
Dear Co-Chairs,
The WS2 Sub-Group on ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is very pleased to present to the plenary of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability WS2 our Report titled ‘CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendationsV2.2’ for first reading, discussion, review, comments and consideration. It was finalized, on Monday 18th of September 2017 at the 30th meeting of the IOO Sub-Group.
As IOO Sub Group Rapporteur I will be pleased to answer any questions and discuss any comments from our CCWG.
I would like to take this opportunity to thanks the participants of our IOO Sub-group and Bernard for his support to finalize the attached documents.
All the best
IOO Sub Group Rapporteur,
Sebastien Bachollet
Attached:
1. IOO first Report 2. External evaluator’s final report
_______________________________________________ Ws2-ombudsman mailing list Ws2-ombudsman@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-ombudsman
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (14)
-
Alberto Soto -
Arasteh -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
farzaneh badii -
Marilyn Cade -
Michael Karanicolas -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Renata Aquino Ribeiro -
Robin Gross -
Sam Lanfranco -
Sebicann Bachollet -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephanie Perrin