<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree too. For an organization the size of ICANN, one ombudsman
to cover a number of accountabilities should suffice. On the other
hand, I do agree that ICANN needs an international appeal mechanism
for its decisions (ie a Court or Tribunal), I don't think that the
Board should be the only appeal mechanism, but that is another
matter entirely.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-05-05 10:55, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6jPuMMAVuRvvqyMcAdwFmNzXcmwcPu-R3WPgESNf3G-pg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p dir="ltr">I tend to agree with Sam on this one, especially the
pondering questions raised in relation to international
oversight.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 5 May 2015 17:15, "Sam Lanfranco" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><big><small>Carlos, <br>
<br>
Thanks for your comment and flagging the issues of an
outside international oversight body, the ombudsmans
(ombudspersons?) office, and the possibility of
another office within ICANN to address “these
strategic challenges”. Here are some quick comments
from the small to the big in terms of challenges here.
<br>
<br>
In terms of the choice between the ombudsman and some
other new ICANN office, my personal view is to prefer
the ombudsman, and not just because it would be less
expensive in a time of serious ICANN budget
constraints (another challenge). I find it hard to
envision a new ICANN office dealing with DNS strategic
challenges where that office would not become a
lightening rod for a wide variety of external forces
interested in issues that would amount to pressure for
ICANN scope creep. As well, administrative theory and
evidence suggests that a new office, in and of itself,
would risk scope creep within its own work agenda, to
bolster its existence, especially in times of
constrained budgets. <br>
<br>
As for an international (outside) oversight body, for
me the core issues are: (a) what principles are to be
upheld; (b) keeping clear what should be inside the
ICANN DNS system remit; and (c) what within the DNS
system should be addressed elsewhere. The primary role
of an oversight body is to hold an entity accountable
to its remit. How does that get defined in a way that
an oversight body: (i) doesn’t foster scope creep by
asking ICANN to be accountable for the wrong things,
and (ii) helps re-direct DNS concerns (especially
content and intellectual property issues) to other
appropriate venues? <br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
</small><i><small><br>
On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</small></i></big></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><big><i><small>Dear Sam,
Powerful message indeed. ICANN needs an outside international oversight
body which would, among other tasks, decidedly help in tackling these
strategic challenges.
But we (NCSG?) seem to agree on this oversight being reduced to an
office within ICANN. What would be the real difference between this
office and the ombudsman? My answer: the ombudsman is much cheaper.
fraternal regards
--c.a.</small></i></big></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>