Draft of our letter to the Board

[Cedric Laurant]

Yes.

Why does the letter not call for a 
reconsideration of the Board's decision, as this 
was the way proposed during the conference call?

Cedric
---
>Dear members:
>Following up on our online Constituency meeting 
>last week, Mary, Robin and other members of the 
>EC and Council have spent a lot of time over the 
>past few days working on our letter to the 
>Board. We submit it now to you for review and 
>consensual support. It is attached.
>
>We are making three simple, very reasonable requests to the Board:
>1. To meet with NCUC members at the Seoul 
>meeting (the whole Board, not just the SIC)
>
>2. To commit to a review of the SIC-imposed 
>charter by July 30, 2010 in a way that allows a 
>fair comparison and debate between the SIC 
>approach and the NCUC approach and which allows 
>modification of either to make a final NCSG 
>charter acceptable to our community
>
>3. To not recognize any new constituencies in 
>NCSG until the charter issue is resolved and we 
>know what a constituency really is in the NCSG.
>
>These requests, if met, would mitigate a lot of 
>the damage ICANN's staff and Board have done. I 
>see no reason why they would refuse to meet with 
>us. They have already agreed to review the SIC 
>charter after a year, this request merely 
>clarifies that the NCUC model of NCSG 
>organization, which the vast majority of civil 
>society supports, is still a live option and 
>explicitly confirms staff's and Board's 
>willingness to find modifications and 
>compromises that will make it more acceptable. 
>Again I have difficulty understanding how a 
>reasonable, well-motivated ICANN Board could 
>refuse to do that. Finally, as a simple matter 
>of logic we are telling the Board that it is 
>disruptive and troublesome to recognize new 
>constituencies before we have finalized the NCSG 
>charter, which defines the role of 
>constituencies.
>
>That fact that our requests are reasonable, of 
>course, is no guarantee that they will be 
>granted. But if they are not, it is a sure tip 
>off that the ICANN Board does not want civil 
>society participation in the GNSO and we will 
>have to consider whether it makes sense to 
>participate in ICANN at all.
>
>We want to make a strong and unified statement 
>so if you have any objections let us know 
>quickly. We need to get this before the Board 
>soon. Please avoid proposing minor wordsmithing 
>changes; this is pretty much a yes or no 
>proposition at this point.
>
>--MM
>
>Content-Type: application/msword; name="NCUCletter to Board-v3.doc"
>Content-Description: NCUCletter to Board-v3.doc
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NCUCletter to Board-v3.doc";
>	size=62464; creation-date="Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:09:39 GMT";
>	modification-date="Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:33:01 GMT"
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:NCUCletter to 
>Board-v3.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002BDA4F)


--