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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, the Council meeting was before the discussion about the ombudsman
approach on the TF. Perhaps that explains the situation? As to pursuing, on
the call we just had, I think that Jordyn said that he and Jeff would move
ahead with that contact immediately following our last week's call. I
haven't seen any feedback on their follow up, but it should have been moving
forward... just on their part...


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:22 AM
To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; metalitz@xxxxxxxx
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2

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
>