ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    ICANN finally might appoint an ombudsman | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re:Revised agenda
    by ehasbrouck on Friday February 27 2009, @06:01PM (#16995)
    User #3130 Info | http://hasbrouck.org
    I posted a comment in the "Ombudsman blog", but it was deleted less than an hour later. So I'm re-posting it here:

    Mr. Fowlie:

    You say that, “The Ombuds Blog has the information concerning the Board of Directors meeting item correctly, while Mr. Hasbrouck does not.” I accurately quoted from the page on the ICANoN web site to which I linked, as it read at the time of my post. That page was updated on 24 February 2009, after my article was published, to change the agenda item from “Approval of Ombudsman” (as I had quoted) to “Approval of Ombudsman Framework”. As of today, the original lannaguage I quoted, “Approval of Ombudsman”, remains on another page on the ICANN Web site at: http://mex.icann.org/node/2689 [icann.org]

    I stand by my story. It was based, as it clearly stated, on what was posted on ICANN’s Web site, which I reported accurately.

    You say that, “The Ombudsman was appointed on November 1, 2004, with the appointment consistent with ICANN’s Bylaw V.” That is not correct. That Bylaw requires that, “The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Board for an initial term of two years, subject to renewal by the Board.” No notice or minutes of any Board meeting on 1 November 2004 have been posted. So whatever happened on that day, it didn’t constitute appointment of an Ombudsman in accordance with the Bylaws. And any appointment would have been for 2 years, unless renewed by the Board, and would have expired unless renewed. There is no record of any such renewal by the Board.

    Your failure to notice that yuor appointment as Ombudsman would require Board action, both initially and for renewal after 2 years, reflects poorly on your fitness for the position. Obviously, that would be a factor to be considered were you now to be proposed for appointment as Ombudsman.

    The portion of the transcript that you reproduce makes explicit that you communicated with the Reconsideration Committee about a request I had made for reconsideration, and about what you describe as “MR. HASBROUCK’S APPLICATION FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED, WHICH WAS BEING DISTRIBUTED AND WAS BASICALLY ON THE SAME GROUNDS”. (As I have written previously, I don’t know what is meant by the latter reference, since at no time before I filed it was my request for independent review “being distributed” to you or anyone else, to the best of my knowledge and belief.)

    Your communications with the Reconsideration Committee about my request for your assistance (on a separate matter than the subject of my request for reconsideration) were in violation of your obligation to me of confidentiality. This is your obligation under the Bylaws, under the Ombudsman Framework, and under the principles of professional ethics to which you claim to subscribe. I hereby request that you refer me to any professional ethics oversight bodies to which you subscribe, for investigation of this complaint that you have violated your obligation of confidentiality, and imposition of sanctions, or that you refer this matter directly to them, in accordance with their procedures for such complaints, with a request that they contact me.

    Whatever was contained in your communications with the Reconsideration Committee, they were not, are not, and cannot be (without further violations of confidentiality and the Bylaws) placed in the public record. By basing its decisions on those communcations, the Reconsideration Committee violated its obligation under the Bylaws: “The Reconsideration Committee shall act on a Reconsideration Request on the basis of the public written record.”

    I do not know why you chose to breach the confidentiality of our communcations, to intervene in the proceedings of the Reconsideration Committtee, or to engage in communications with them which you knew, or reasonably should have known, could not be used as any part of the basis for their decision.

    These, too, would be factors to be considered were you now to be proposed for appointment as Ombudsman.

    Sincerely,

    Edward Hasbrouck
    http://hasbrouck.org/icann [hasbrouck.org]

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Revised agenda by ehasbrouck
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  
    Re:Revised agenda
    by ehasbrouck on Saturday February 28 2009, @06:44AM (#16996)
    User #3130 Info | http://hasbrouck.org
    The morning after I re-posted my comment here and to the GA and At-large NA-Discuss ICANN mailing lists, and sent a copy by e-mail to the "Ombudsman", my comment reappeared in the ICANN Ombudsman Blog.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com