AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number


14 January 2018


Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Office of Ombudsman (IOO)


ADOPTED

13Y, 0N, 1A

Sebastien Bachollet, ALAC Member of EURALO, abstained:

"I abstain as I am the rapporteur of the CCWG ICANN Accountability S2 ICANN Ombuds Office Subgroup.
Not because of disagreement."


Alan Greenberg

Seun Ojedeji

Bastiaan Goslings


11 January 2018


12 January 2018


15 January 2018


19 January 2018


14 January 2018


Patrick Dodson
patrick.dodson@icann.org


AL-ALAC-ST-0118-03-01-EN

Hide the information below, please click here 


Brief Overview

Purpose: This Public Comment seeks community input on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). These draft recommendations were developed by the CCWG-Accountability as required by Annex 12 of the final report of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Work Stream 1 (CCWG-Accountability, WS1).

Current Status: The CCWG-Accountability reviewed these draft recommendations at its 11 and 18 October 2017 plenary meetings and approved their publication to gather public comments.

Next Steps: Following the public comment period the inputs will be analyzed by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 who will consider amending the recommendations in light of the comments received and will publish a report on the results of the public consultation. If significant changes are required as a result of the public consultation the CCWG-Accountability WS2 may decide to not include these recommendations in its final report given it must complete its work by June 2018. If there are no significant changes required, the CCWG-Accountability WS2 will include these in its final report and forward it to its Chartering Organizations for approval and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption.

Section I: Description and Explanation

The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability-WS2) on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) project obtains its mandate and scope from ICANN bylaws and the CCWG-Accountability, WS1 Final report which included Recommendation 12 the following:

As part of Work Stream 2, the CCWG-Accountability proposes that further enhancements be made to a number of designated mechanisms:

  • Considering enhancements to the Ombudsman's role and function.

Annex 12, which details Recommendation 12, also included the following recommendations with regards to the IOO:

Considering Enhancements to the Ombudsman's Role and Function

Through the enhanced Request for Reconsideration process (see Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN's Request for Reconsideration Process), the CCWG-Accountability has given increased responsibility to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman can perform a critical role in ensuring that ICANN is transparent and accountable, preventing and resolving disputes, supporting consensus-development, and protecting bottom-up, multistakeholder decision-making at ICANN. ICANN's Office of Ombudsman must have a clear charter that reflects, supports, and respects ICANN's Mission, Commitments and Core Values, and must have sufficient authority and independence to ensure that it can perform these important roles effectively. As part of Work Stream 2, the CCWG-Accountability will evaluate the current Ombudsman charter and operations against industry best practices and recommend any changes necessary to ensure that the ICANNOmbudsman has the tools, independence, and authority needed to be an effective voice for ICANN stakeholders.

In addition to the requirements found in Annex 12 the ATRT2 recommendation for the evaluation of the ICANN Office of the Ombuds (IOO) was transferred to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 to avoid overlap or duplication of work.

Section II: Background

To undertake this work the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 created an IOO sub-group which was charged with presenting a report to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary for consideration.

After some initial discussions, the IOO sub-group decided to focus its work on the external review of the IOO.

The final report of the external evaluator identified 5 areas for improvement:

  1. Clarify role and processes – manage expectations
  2. Standing and authority
  3. Strengthen independence
  4. Strengthen transparency
  5. Policy for non-dispute roles

To address the need for improvements the report made 11 recommendations.

The IOO sub-group approved the objectives of all the recommendations made by the external evaluator but did modify some of the implementation requirements to allow for more flexibility and speed in implementation, especially when considering Bylaws changes. It is also important to note that these do not modify the Charter of the Office of the Ombudsman (section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws) or the Jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman as documented in the ICANNOmbudsman Framework.

Section III: Relevant Resources



Section IV: Additional Information


Supporting Documents

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Patrick Dodson
patrick.dodson@icann.org

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


The ALAC commends the subgroup and entire CCWG on ICANN Accountability for their work in producing this draft. The ALAC supports the draft as currently presented. Nevertheless, we would like to make a few comments for CCWG's consideration.

Recommendation 7: While we acknowledge and support gender diversity, we also suggest that language diversity be considered in Staff resource configuration, to the extent practical.

Recommendation 11: We recognize that the items proposed will address important, high-level policies expected to be observed by the Office of the Ombudsman; therefore, we do not believe restricting the Ombudsman from certain activities (i.e. like socializing) as suggested by certain members of the Community[1] is a necessary detail to codify in such policy. We expect the Ombudsman would understand their role, hence would observe his/her duties accordingly; Community policing of the Ombudsman should not be a solution to fix a performance issue.

Once again, we would like to thank the CCWG for their work and the opportunity to contribute to this process, and we look forward to continuing our engagement in the process.

[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2017-September/014166.html

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.


The ALAC commends the Sub-group and the entire CCWG on ICANN accountability for her work in producing this draft. ALAC supports the draft as currently presented. Nevertheless we will also like to make a few suggestions and comments for CCWG's consideration.

1. Recommendation 5: We appreciate the effort to ensure more information/data is provided by the Ombuds office in form of a report. However we also suggest that such KPI report should include how ombuds office has ensured to treat and resolve issues/complaints on a first come first served basis

2. Recommendation 7: While we acknowledge and support gender diversity, we also suggest that language diversity be considered in staff resource configuration to the extent practicable.

3. Recommendation 8: We recognize that creating such panel implies yet another review burden in addition to all other periodic reviews and this always creates a concern of community fatigue. It is not clear where the panel referred will be sourced. However, on the assumption that the members will be sourced from the community we think it may be difficult to achieve the required community balance. In-view of this, it may be prudent and appropriate that such panel becomes a Board committee as it is expected that the Board represent the most independent part of the community.

4. Recommendation 11: We recognize that the items proposed will address important high-level policies expected to be observed by the ombuds office, therefore we do not believe that restricting the ombudsman from certain activities like socializing as was suggested by certain members of the community[1] is a necessary detail to hard-code in such policy. We expect that the ombudsman would understand her role hence will observe his/her duties accordingly; Community policing of ombudsman should not be a solution to fix a performance issue.

Once again we like to thank the CCWG for their work and for the opportunity to contribute to the process while we look forward to continue our engagement in the process.

[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2017-September/014166.html

6 Comments

  1. Bastiaan Goslings

    Thank you, Seun - I agree with the  'ALAC supports the draft as currently presented'. A couple of remarks with regard to the 'nevertheless' and the additional points suggested:

    • Recommendation 5: no issue there as such, i.e. if we feel this needs to be emphasized. But IMO the 'KPI report should include how ombuds office has ensured to treat and resolve issues/complaints on a first come first served basis' is covered by the 'The ICANN Office of the Ombuds  should establish (KPIs) timelines for its own handling of complaints and report against these' from the Recommendation itself;
    • Recommendation 7: no issue as such, and again, fine if we want to emphasize this. However here too I think the 'we also suggest that language diversity be considered in staff resource configuration to the extent practicable' is already covered by the Recommendation itself: 'The Office of the Ombuds should be ideally configured (subject to practicality) so that it has gender, and if possible other forms of diversity within its staff resources';
    • Recoomendation 8: I agree with the intent of the suggestion, but do we really want to say 'that the Board represent the most independent part of the community.'? Thing e.g. of what the Empowered Community can do vis a vis the Board...

    1. Seun Ojedeji

      Thanks Bastiaan, as you may already imagined all the nevertheless points are no red-liners for me. Below are a few response to your comments: 1. Hmm... technically that should be given from the section you quoted so maybe we should not mention it. Though providing a timeline doesn't necessarily always mean complaints will be attended to on first come first served basis. 2. The rationale here is that gender was specifically mentioned and I thought it should rather be "gender and language" then others. 3. I was more of trying to speak within context of that but I agree it can be misinterpreted. Fine with ending that at ".....Board committee." I assume you are fine with the 4th comment. Thanks again.

  2. Sebastien Bachollet

    Regarding recommendation 8.

    Please look at the review document it may help to answer some of the question raised in the proposed comments.

    Page 10

    "3. Strengthen independence
    There is a clear need to strengthen the perception of the Ombuds function’s independence.
    We recommend the addition of an Ombuds advisory panel – independent of the Board - to
    take some of the oversight work currently done by the Governance Committee and to add a
    system of guidance and support for the Ombuds. We also suggest some detail change to
    the Ombuds employment."

    Page 5

    "Made up of 5 members to act as advisers, supporters, wise counsel for the Ombuds and
    should be made up of a minimum of at least 2 members with ombudsman experience and
    the remainder with extensive ICANN experience"

    And one of my comment : it is not a review.

    Sebastien (for transparency - rapporteur of the IOO subgroup)

    1. Seun Ojedeji

      Hello Sebastien, Thanks for your comments, well since it seem the goal was to have something independent of the Board(though i have no idea why that was necessary) then i guess no need for the proposed ALAC comment on recommendation 8 anymore.[1] Though I personally think that such oversight should indeed be the responsibility of the Board and not that of some volunteer community member. Regards 1. Hoping to read more support on removing recommendation 8 comments.

  3. Sebastien Bachollet

    Hello all, following the ALT call, please find my personal remarks on the comments.

    Reco N°5 - do we think that the complains must be handle on a first come first served basis? It can happen that a more important issue came in the flow of other complains and need to take priority. For exemple some specific issue during a F2F meeting. We need to leave some flexibility how the IOO handle complains.

    Reco N°7 - why not

    Reco N°11 - agree

    1. Seun Ojedeji

      Hello Sebastian, thanks for this and sorry for the late reply (for some reason I did not get notification that there has been a response). As to your comment on 5, yes the resolution timeline may be different for each issue. Nevertheless, I will modify to cover for flexibility (if there is a preference to remove entirely then please indicate). Edited draft below (I hope it comes out good as am using my mobile, otherwise staff should help out) The ALAC commends the Sub-group and the entire CCWG on ICANN accountability for her work in producing this draft. ALAC supports the draft as currently presented. Nevertheless we will also like to make a few suggestions and comments for CCWG's consideration. 1. Recommendation 5: We appreciate the effort to ensure more information/data is provided by the Ombuds office in form of a report to the community. However we also suggest that such KPI report should include how ombuds office made efforts to feasibly treat and resolve issues/complaints on a first come first served basis 2. Recommendation 7: While we acknowledge and support gender diversity, we also suggest that language diversity be considered in staff resource configuration to the extent practicable. 3. Recommendation 11: We recognize that the items proposed will address important high-level policies expected to be observed by the ombuds office, therefore we do not believe that restricting the ombudsman from certain activities like socializing as was suggested by certain members of the community[1] is a necessary detail to hard-code in such policy. We expect that the ombudsman would understand her role hence will observe his/her duties accordingly; Community policing of ombudsman should not be a solution to fix a performance issue. Once again we like to thank the CCWG for their work and for the opportunity to contribute to the process while we look forward to continue our engagement in the process. [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2017-September/014166.html