<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
- To: <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
- From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:48:33 -0500
- Cc: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I could not attend the conference call but agree with Steve Metalitz
that the ombudsman route would be worth considering.
Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org
>>> "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2/21/2005 3:45:26 PM
>>>
Hi Steve:
The Council actually discussed our progress on Tuesday and recommended
that we proceed in a manner somewhat similar to what you suggest. I'll
try to review the notes and write up a summary today so that we can
discuss in some more detail on tomorrow's call.
Jordyn
On Feb 21, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:
> As I recall, at the end of the last meeting it was decided that the
> co-chairs would circulate a proposal for an "option B" for having
> further discussion on the first recommendation (notice to and consent
> from registrant). Having seen no proposal from the co-chairs I
assume
> we should move ahead with "regular order" (to the extent there is
> one!) under the PDP, i.e., prepare the recommendation for public
> comment.
>
> Regarding the second recommendation (procedure for situations of
> alleged conflict between ICANN agreements and local law re Whois), we
> have been discussing two options: moving ahead under the PDP
(seeking
> constituency statements on the recommendation), or continuing to wait
> until it becomes possible to schedule a meeting with the ICANN staff
> that have apparently expressed objections to the recommendation. A
> third option has been brought to my attention, and I believe it is
> worth serious consideration: asking the ICANN Ombudsman to
> intervene. Our problem clearly seems to fall within the ombudsman's
> purview. See Ombudsman Framework, at
> http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/ombudsman-framework-03dec04.htm ("The
> Ombudsman's function is to act as an Alternative Dispute Resolution
> (ADR) office for the ICANN community who may wish to lodge a
complaint
> about a staff or board decision, action or inaction. The purpose of
> the office is to ensure that the members of the ICANN community have
> been treated fairly. The Ombudsman will act as an impartial officer
> and will attempt to resolve complaints about unfair treatment by
ICANN
> using ADR techniques."). The ombudsman's webpage states: "The ICANN
> Ombudsman will receive and have jurisdiction over complaints
> concerning: Decisions, actions, or inactions by one or more members
of
> ICANN staff". I believe that is the situation we face here.
>
> While the ombudsman process can be invoked by anyone, and it would
> not require a decision of the Task Force for one or more individuals
> to move forward on this route, I believe it is worth discussing this
> option on our call tomorrow.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|