ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2

  • To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
  • From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:40:38 -0500
  • Cc: <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <s222ff0a.065@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • References: <s222ff0a.065@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


We agreed on the last call that we would address our concerns to the Ombudsman. I've submitted a brief summary of the situation, including our recommendations and the staff's formal response as well as a rough timeline of the events (or lack thereof) to the Ombudsman, but have not yet received a response.


On Feb 28, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Milton Mueller wrote:

A check with my Council representatives indicates that there was no
discussion of the Ombudsman issue on the Council. May I Get a response,
please to the suggestion of Steve and myself that this be pursued?

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies

"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.


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
we should move ahead with "regular order" (to the extent there is
one!) under the PDP, i.e., prepare the recommendation for public

 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
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
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
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
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 >>>