ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
  • From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:36:00 -0500
  • Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Ryan Lehning" <rlehning@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E90C8FF@smmail.local.iipa.com>
  • References: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E90C8FF@smmail.local.iipa.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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


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.
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


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
> 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
>> 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 >>>