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 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.
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 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.
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:
(KPIs)timelines for its own handling of complaints and report against these' from the Recommendation itself; subject to practicality) so that it has gender, and if possible other forms of diversity within its staff resources';
Regarding recommendation 8.
Please look at the review document it may help to answer some of the question raised in the proposed comments.
"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."
"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)
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