I posted a comment in the "Ombudsman blog", but it was deleted less than an hour later. So I'm re-posting it here:
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:
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.