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