Subject: Question 2
From: guest@socialtext.net
Date: 2011-01-14 08:28:29 GMT
Received: from 61.113.174.133
2. Do ICANN's accountability mechanisms, including the Ombudsman, the Board reconsideration procedure and the Independent Review Panel provide meaningful accountability and, if not, how could they be improve
From Avri:
The Ombudsman is not a viable option. Perhaps in theory it is, but an Ombudsman is supposed to be someone who is outside the organization and who is guaranteed neutral. We have an Ombudsman who has been involved in the organization longer than many of the volunteers and is an integral part of the staff and pals around with them and the Board. This is not, in any way, a viable accountability mechanism. In order to become a viable accountability mechanism, it would be necessary to replace an Ombudsman every 2 or 3 years, and would be necessary for the person picked to remain separate from the Staff and the volunteers.
contributed by avri@acm.org on 2010-06-14 17:45:41 GMT
—
From Mary:
Agreeing again with Avri; the concept of an ombudsman is entirely legitimate and can be useful. In the ICANN context, however, the NCSG experience has been that how the Ombudsman operates has been arbitrary and unfair. The specific instance I have in mind is the complaint that was filed by an individual community member against the NCUC Chair, Robin Gross, alleging incivility on the part of Ms. Gross towards this individual. Our concern for purposes of this Accountability & Transparency exercise is NOT the question of whether there was incivility or not, or the actual Ombudsman's findings in the matter, but rather: (1) the potential exceeding of his jurisdiction by the Ombudsman; and (2) his unfair treatment of Ms. Gross during the process. In addition, we believe the Ombudsman breached Ms. Gross' privacy when he posted details of the complaint on his blog.
On (1), we question (and I believe Ms. Gross may have raised this issue in her response to the complaint) whether or not the Ombudsman's jurisdiction at the time extended toward allegations of incivility, and toward the possible remedy under consideration of removing Ms. Gross from her elected office as constituency chair. Although ICANN has adopted a code of civility, this does not appear to be within the Ombudsman's mandate,nor does his jurisdiction include anyone other than ICANN staff and Board members (see http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/).
On (2), Ms. Gross was given only a very limited amount of time to file her response to what became a fairly fact-intensive complaint. She did so, and filed a lengthy legal response within the time given. Yet the Ombudsman managed to render his decision - which should have included legal review of the legal doctrines cited by Ms. Gross in her response - in a remarkably short period of time (NOTE: need Robin to confirm if this was indeed 24 or 48 hours!).
Further, during the process, the Ombudsman uploaded a blog post that, while not identifying the parties by name, gave sufficient details about the incident such that anyone doing a simple Google search could find the case (this was, in fact, how Ms. Gross found out about the blog post - someone who did exactly such a Google search emailed her to ask her about it). When NCSG members posted comments on the Ombudsman's blog criticizing his poor judgment in deciding even to blog about an ongoing case, he immediately took down both the original post and all the consequent comments.
This amounts not just to a blatant breach of Ms. Gross' privacy, but an unforgivable disregard for professionalism in the exercise of his duties.
While we commend the Board on what we believe was the correct decision in the circumstances, we remain outraged by the Ombudsman's behavior, which so far seems to have not just remained uninvestigated, but actually rewarded.
contributed by mwong@piercelaw.edu on 2010-06-22 15:09:16 GMT
—
The Ombudsman lacks credibility as an impartial mediator.
The .XXX episode, and whether ICANN accepts the judgment of the Independent Review Panel, will help determine whether IR offers any greater accountability. If ICANN does not voluntarily accept that it should be bound by reasoned decision on the evidence, then I doubt its capacity for self-generated accountability and we need stronger contractual and legal binding (even national law oversight).
contributed by wendy@seltzer.com on 2010-06-22 16:33:42 GMT
