[NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office

Fri Jan 5 00:38:29 EET 2018

Farzi,
	My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills to do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they do family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather social problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still applies.
	And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a consultant (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US. It is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability and transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers coming and going. For instance, we don’t control how they handle information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually get differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools, universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and companies. 
	I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution eventually, but I just don’t see that it will solve the problems we have with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the current situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.

As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as an honest opinion before closing the matter.

Cheers,
Martín

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> 
> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on  commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law firm. 
> 
> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained. As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN. 
> 
> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end a contract with an organization.  
> 
> Farzaneh
> 
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/3b601afd/attachment.htm>