You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 8 Next »

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)


DRAFTING


Alan Greenberg

Seun Ojedeji

Bastiaan Goslings


10 November 2017


12 January 2018




14 January 2018


Hide the information below, please click here 

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.


 


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

  • No labels