Fowlie's Follies: The Latest Adventures of Frank Fowlie, ICANN Ombudsman & Civility Policeman

[Mary Wong]

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: mwong at piercelaw.edu
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" <ca at CAFONSO.CA>
To:<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
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: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================



Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100720/f3919dc2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMAGE.jpg
Type: image/jpg
Size: 14408 bytes
Desc: JPEG image
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100720/f3919dc2/attachment.jpg>