Hi,
I wanted to share with everyone an e-mail I received from ICANN
Ombudsman Chris LaHatte. Chris was helping me with some technical problems I
was having with the ICANN website, took at look at my public comment on
accountability and made what I thought were some interesting observations
about the Ombudsman’s role at ICANN currently and going forward.
I note that Chris was “taken” with the idea that the
NomCom, rather than the Board, appoint and renew the contract of the
Ombudsman. With the changes currently proposed for the NomCom I’m not
sure that remains a good idea from our perspective, but I would be
interested in what Brenden (who is doing a great job on NomCom and I hope is
returned), Maria, Rafik, Norbert or anyone else who has served on NomCom
think of the possibility. Is NomCom well positioned to select the Ombudsman?
Is it better positioned than the Board is?
In granting me permission to share his e-mail Chris noted “the
current discussion on accountability is important for me, because of my
future role and the impact on the operation of the office of the
ombudsman”. I’d like to thank Chris for his contribution and
suggest that staff input of this nature is potentially more valuable than
that which the staff representative will bring to the Accountability CG.
ICANN’s staff has a plurality of views that can’t possibly be
represented by a single individual selected by upper management.
Thanks,
Ed
-------------
CC:
Dear Edward
The web people at ICANN have now fixed the link, and you can now see
the paper. I took the opportunity to read this and was most interested in
your comments on my role. I was taken by the concept of the NomCon
appointing the Ombudsman, which may be worth considering.An ombudsman does
not necessarily ever have coercive powers. The model as developed originally
has only ever had the power to recommend that there should be changes to
resolve issues of unfairness, and you will find that throughout the world,
most ombudsmen operate under a model of persuasion, mediation and
recommendation.
Generally the power which is strongest is that of access to
information, which I do have under my bylaw. I do sometimes get involved in
DIDP complaints, but do note your observation that very few of these result
in further disclosure.
The issue of how to isolate my office from the politics at the board
level is something of considerable importance. You may have noted however
that I cannot be removed except by a majority of 75%. Where there is
potential for interference is at the time of renewal however. Some ombudsman
officers are appointed for reasonable periods of time, but at ICANN we have
tended to have shorter term renewals.
But I am glad that these issues are being debated and discussed and I
found your perspective valuable and thoughtful.
Regards
Chris LaHatte
Ombudsman