The current ICANN ombudsman framework has a requirement of a 75% vote of the Board in order to terminate the ombudsman's appointment, without mentioning any grounds, process or initiation/appeal from the community. I mentioned this in my public comments submitted to the Accountability & Transparency Review Team; it may be a good idea for other members to make similar submissions (since the A&T RT has said they welcome all continuing feedback), including points and suggestions made by Andrew, Dan and others here. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> To:<[log in to unmask]> Date: 7/19/2010 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Fowlie's Follies: The Latest Adventures of Frank Fowlie, ICANN Ombudsman & Civility Policeman In any case, I think any power to remove this sad figure is above staff, so Rod could not do it. I do not know how far the board could go either in this case, *if* it ever decided the man should pack and hit the road, unless he gets to the end of his second term in office. So the Follies might continue for a while... :) --c.a. On 07/19/2010 09:41 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It is up to the Board to renew his contract or not. They did last year even though they knew better. >> >> But the problem is that he is supposed to be this independent review mechanism, so it is difficult to just remove him. I have not seen the contract so I don't know under what basis he can be removed. >> >> The bylaws, should have a term limit to get by this, especially since most of the literature I have seen on ombudsmen seems to indicate a few year fixed term is better than an open ended term of forever - you can't remain objective that long. > > The parliamentary ombudsman role in the UK showed up the folly of a post > which is renewed (or not) by those whom regulates. The idea was that someone > could be renewed once in the post. The first so-appointed was renewed for a > second term, IIRC, but the second one, who had been much more critical of > ministers in particular, did not have their position renewed, amid > allegations that they were being replaced for being too harsh. Fixed terms of > office, no renewals, and clear external triggers for removal, such as > criminal charges, adjudicated themselves by some external independent body, > is the correct format for such roles, IMAO. > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: [log in to unmask] ==================================== Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership