Draft Letter to ICANN Board & CEO

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not sure US laws cares about administrative justice.  Would be
interesting to know.  But one can certainly demand that ICANN live up
to such conditions of fairness.

Might be a good position to take in a possible Ombudsman appeal.

BTW: also need to add in the fact that the 2 SGs in the contracted
parties house were ultimately allowed to have a charter that did not
include Constituencies.   As far as I can tell there have not been any
explanations, either cogent or otherwise, of why they were allowed but
NCSG wasn't.  Perhaps this fits into the argument about the NCSG
proposed charter having never really been considered because it was
superseded by the Policy Staff created charter.

Note: i was never in favor of constituency-less SG charters, but that
is what NCUC bottom up process originally decided on, and as I
understand only changed when it became clear that it would not be
allowed.  At least not for the NCSG.  I apologize for my role in
helping to convince NCUC to back down on that (and some other stuff) -
but i never envisioned that the Board would allow it - i was wrong.


a.

On 11 Aug 2009, at 16:39, Willie Currie wrote:

> 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:
>
> - the misperceptions circulated about the NCUC by the ALAC chair and
> others (p9)
> - the timing of the late release of the SIC/Staff Charter and the
> process surrounding its tabling to the Board (p7)
> - 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)
> - 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)
>
> 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).
>
> 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.