[NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Tati and Ayden,
	I personally I’ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant, is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough, the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
	Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman role and who’s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice, point out and document. 
	I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself. 

Cheers,
Martín


> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now, making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
> 
> —Ayden  
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> 
>> 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>.
>>  
>> Our draft is 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>
>>  
>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> Tanya
>>  
>> 
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/c72b0001/attachment.htm>