[Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum]

[Katitza Rodriguez]

Dear Robin

Yes, it is very important to highlight all of the names of the
organizations and individuals who had previously commented on this
issue.  I must admit that I also personally think that may be some
ICANN staff are also not fully aware of how our internal civil society
procedures works in order to get support to some sort of
petitions ..... they might be aware of some coalitions that are open
but not for others. Each group have their own internal dynamics.  This
are my personal observations of this process.

My two cents.

Best, Katitza

On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Katitza,
>
> I agree with your suggestion.  We can note in the letter all of the
> names of the organizations and individuals who had previously
> commented on this issue.  There seems to have been serious
> disconnect between the facts of this situation and the "facts" that
> the board members were given by staff.  The decision was entirely
> engineered to have a single result and we need to show that.
>
> Cedric,
>
> Thanks very much for volunteering to take the first stab at drafting
> this letter.  We can discuss it in more detail at the NCUC
> constituency call tomorrow, so you know more specifics about what to
> include in it.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 9, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Dear Bill:
>>
>>>
>>> Interesting parallel: I asked Rob in a GNSO council meeting, and
>>> reiterated in my submission to the public comment period, that
>>> statements made in support of the NCUC version by NCUC members and
>>> hundreds (counting the Internet Governance Caucus etc) of external
>>> supporters in the public comment period ending 15 April be taken
>>> into account in the summary of the PC ending 23 July.  The reasons
>>> for doing so were straightforward: there was no reason to believe
>>> that the organizations and individuals that said they supported
>>> the NCUC model and therefore rejected the opposite model had
>>> changed their positions,  so they should not be required to all
>>> mobilize and restate their stances a couple months later, in the
>>> summer travel season (although some did).  The suggestion was not
>>> acted upon or even mentioned in the staff summary.
>>
>>
>> We need to write a letter to the Chairman of the Board and all the
>> Board Members explaining:
>>
>> a. NCUC proposal & the support it got (signatures orgs +
>> individuals + coalitions).
>> b. Explain why we consider there were not a bottom up approach (and
>> how we get ignore it).
>> c. Would be nice to analyzed the ICANN's last proposal and attached
>> comments to it.
>>
>> We do not need to ask for more signatures. We need to attached
>> those signatures we already collect and enforce what we already
>> request. I am pretty sure that many board members are not aware of
>> our NCUC process to get consensus on documents. how the NCUC
>> proposal were discussed in different mailing lists, nor how NGOs
>> get their consensus through their own organizations structures/
>> memberships/coalitions, etc.
>>
>> My two cents. Unfortunately, I am not able to help right now as I
>> am very busy. But Cedric Laurant has volunteer to write the letter
>> if NCUC Steering Committee agree on this.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Katitza
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090810/eb8be64b/attachment.html>