Public comment on Ombuds Office
Sam Lanfranco
lanfran at YORKU.CA
Sun Jan 7 18:34:00 EET 2018
Rafik,
The two different perceptions with regard to the importance of context
are now on the table and our colleagues can work toward a position.
All this becomes testable since eventually there are policies to be
monitored, with impacts measured and evaluated for lessons learned.
I personally am hoping that dealing with anti-harassment becomes a
dwindling part of the Ombudsperson's work.
Learning on that front should not be difficult.
Sam L.
On 1/7/2018 6:21 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think knowing ICANN context is required for what the ombudsman
> is requested to do i.e mediation, investigate or managing the
> anti-harassment policy like lately. In fact, it may create bias and
> influence decisions made by the ombudsman, in the long run. I am
> also cautious about the narrative that ICANN is unique which is often
> used to dismiss changes or common practices and encourage the statu quo.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-08 7:37 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca
> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>>:
>
> I would like to second/endorse Michael’s concerns about
> outsourcing some of the tasks to outside the Ombudsperson’s
> Office. In addition to the risk that outsourced services will be
> overly friendly to the establishment position, building capital
> for future services retention, there is a high probability that
> they will not understand the ICANN context well enough to either
> (a) understand the problem in context, or (b) offer
> recommendations that are appropriate for the ICANN context.
>
> While issues may be standard, the purpose of a referral to the
> Ombudsperson’s Office is to both deal with the issue at hand, and
> to incorporate elements of the solution into ICANN internal best
> practice. The advantage to a one-stop Ombudsperson’s Office is
> that it (should) more fully understand the ICANN context. For that
> to work the Ombudsperson’s Office needs independence,
> accountability and -with regard to processes- transparency. It
> should have limited capacity to call on external expertise when
> dealing with ICANN issues.
>
> It is of course up to the Ombudsperson’s Office to engage in
> conduct that preserves its integrity and independence. That
> involves deliberate policies about how it deals with ICANN
> constituencies (and constituents) in the normal conduct of ICANN
> business. Judges must do this all the time. It is no difficult.
>
> I am not in favor of NCSG support for external expertise. I would
> rather have NCSG maintain a “watching brief” on the activities of
> the Ombudsperson’s Office, reviewing annual reports to insure
> preservation of integrity, than to have to trust the abilities of
> external “expert” service providers who fall woefully short in
> their understanding of how ICANN works and what recommendations
> might be useful.
>
> Sam L
>
> On 1/7/2018 4:01 PM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Great stuff! Thanks very much for taking this forward.
>>
>> I have added some comments. Mainly, I think we need to do a bit
>> more to flesh out the recommendation about limiting
>> fraternization/socialization. These are issues that come up in
>> other contexts - fraternization rules for officers in the
>> military, socialization/relationship guidelines between judges
>> and lawyers, etc. However, this is a really challenging boundary
>> to set, and even more difficult to enforce. I think if we're
>> going to suggest something as difficult as this, we need to put a
>> bit more substance behind it and provide some more concrete
>> ideas. If we're not going to do that, I think we should put the
>> idea in softer terms, and maybe instead of demanding a hard rule
>> be included we should suggest that the Ombudsman's office work in
>> consultation with the community to set appropriate guidelines for
>> socialization/personal conflicts.
>>
>> I also disagree with the idea that going to an external
>> organization would necessarily be a better guarantee of
>> independence... Indeed - I think it could have the opposite
>> effect, since their more tenuous relationship with their client
>> (ICANN) would create strong incentives not to rock the boat, or
>> deliver unpopular truths. There's no shortage of examples of
>> where an institutional oversight/accountability mechanism does
>> the job well, when sufficient measures are taken to guarantee
>> their independence. I can't think of many parallel structures
>> where contracted organizations provide the kind of accountability
>> we want here - though I would be open to suggestion.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Kathy Kleiman
>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Very good comments! Tx Tatiana to you and Farzi for taking
>> the lead on this important issue.
>>
>> Best, Kathy
>>
>> On 1/7/2018 2:38 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the
>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2) draft
>> recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO).
>> The call for comment and all the documents related to it
>> could be found here:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>> The draft of the public comment can be found here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>> We would appreciate your comments and suggestion. It is
>> an important piece of work that has been done in the
>> workstream 2, and we propose some amendments to it on
>> behalf of the NCSG.
>> Looking forward to your feedback! Please submit it till
>> 12-13 of January, as we have to finalise it on the NCSG
>> PC level before the submission deadline, which is 14th of
>> January.
>> Best regards,
>> Tatiana
>>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------
"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 at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco
blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180107/7e77043a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list