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

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve:

This call is open to guests so that's no problem.

Jordyn

On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> As you know today's call presents scheduling difficulties for IPC so I would appreciate if my colleague Ryan Lehning could sit in on at least some of the call. Thanks for accommodating this.
>  Steve
>  --------------------------
>  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Jordyn A. Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
>  CC: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  Sent: Mon Feb 28 20:40:38 2005
>  Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
>
>  Milton:
>
>  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.
>
>  Jordyn
>
>  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
>  > 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
>  >>