ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:21:21 -0500
  • Cc: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <bef73f61ac51256aeb8c96a9c4d3c7ca@confusion.net>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcUe3j8XVHIQu3h6SDevykEeXHIs0wAAOgew

I will be very interested in the process. 

We can think of inviting him to a TF meeting in MdP... ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:14 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: 'Milton Mueller'; metalitz@xxxxxxxx; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2

Thanks for the clarification, Marilyn.

I actually just had a conversation with the Ombudsman earlier this 
evening--I hadn't originally realized that there was a special form to 
fill out, but I've done that now and have already received some follow 
up questions.  It seems that the Ombudsman will be quite responsive to 
the complaint that we have filed.


On Mar 1, 2005, at 11:03 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 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
>> 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 >>>