<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>Yes, Willie, you are right that we ARE asking the board to reconsider its decision to impose the staff drafted charter. But what we should say is that "there are elements of the 30 July decision we will accept" so as to not cause problems for the Seoul council seating, etc. So we should amend para 3 to reflect that we do want a new hearing and reconsideration of the decision that the charter cannot be revisited for a year. Perhaps we should also mention in this letter that we request an opportunity to present our materials directly to the board for discussion on its 27 Aug. meeting or its early Sept. board retreat. </div><div><br></div><div>I like the suggestion of looking at this through an administrative law perspective, although it may not have legal teeth (it could have moral sway). Anyone know any administrative law / constitutional law geeks who may want to take on that research?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Willie Currie wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> Dear Mary<br> <br> Great letter! Just two quick points - I'm not sure about paragraph 3. I thought the idea expressed in today's meeting was precisely to make a request to the Board to reconsider its decision. So I would suggest striking out paragrph 3 and replacing it with a formal request to the board to reconsider its decision. That would also change the tenor of the letter from a plea to correct misperceptions to a formal request to reconsider a decision. <br> <br> With regard to section 2 on specific issues with the NCSG Charter adopted by the Board, isn't there a body of US adminstrative law we can draw on to attack the decision on the grounds of administrative injustice, as it appears that the process adopted by ICANN in its decision-making on the charters has been based on:<br> <br> - the misperceptions circulated about the NCUC by the ALAC chair and others (p9)<br> - the timing of the late release of the SIC/Staff Charter and the process surrounding its tabling to the Board (p7)<br> - the failure of the Board to discuss the NCUC's proposed Charter, implying the failure of the NCUC's views to be heard by an administrative body (is there evidence of this?) (p10)<br> - the filtering of views in the 'Summary & Analysis' document and the short time it was provided to the Board before the July 30 Meeting (today's NCUC meeting)<br> <br> In addition, the disparity in treatment between the Board's treatment of the NCSG and CSG charters raises issues of administrative fairness regarding constituencies and the issue of the ICANN Board being guilty of discrimination and prejudice (p10).<br> <br> I don't know how administrative justice works in the USA but these are the kinds of issues in other jurisdictions which would be used to overturn a decision of an administrative body on technical grounds of administrative fairness, whether through formal processes of judicial review or alternative dispute mechanisms, which is often easier to do than challenging issues on the merits or content of decisions.<br> <br> Willie<br> <br> Willie Currie<br> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager<br> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><br> <br> Mary Wong wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4A8181D20200005B00040B9D@BRENNAN" type="cite"> <div>Dear NCUC'ers,</div> <div> </div> <div>Attached is the draft letter that was discussed during the constituency call held earlier today. For those who were not able to be on the call, the purpose of the letter is to draw the Board's and Mr Rod Beckstrom's attention to the injustice of the process which led to the arbitrary imposition of the SIC/Staff-drafted transitional NCSG Charter (including the selection by the Board of 3 NCSG Councilors in the new User House). The NCUC Exco has also discussed the possibility of sending this document as an "open letter" to the GNSO community. Although long, it was drafted specifically in the form of a narrative-cum-summary of the process, and can therefore also serve as a reminder/introduction to the whole issue.</div> <div> </div> <div>For those on the Exco who have seen a preliminary version of this draft, please review it carefully nonetheless as certain issues have been re-framed and additions made.</div> <div> </div> <div>Please send comments either directly to me or this list. As agreed on the constituency call, we should send this sooner rather than later, so a prompt response is very much appreciated!</div> <div> </div> <div>Thanks,</div> <div>Mary</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><strong><font color="#800080">Mary W S Wong</font></strong></div> <div>Professor of Law</div> <div>Franklin Pierce Law Center</div> <div>Two White Street</div> <div>Concord, NH 03301</div> <div>USA</div> <div>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</a></div> <div>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</div> <div>Webpage: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</a></div> <div>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a></div> </blockquote> <br> </blockquote></div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></body></html>