Dear all,

first my apologies, I could not make it to the teleconference - I am
struggling with my computer which started to misbehave last week and
finally went down on Saturday - and it is still not yet fully back.

Thanks for all the excellent discussion and drafting - I can fully
accept and support the stage we are in - which came with Mary's letter
down here, except for the question Robin raised: that the call for the
board to reconsider dropped out and should be in again.

I also share Mary's opinion that - while the substantive issues were
mostly said and written already before, the grave irregularities and
misrepresentations result in a heavily manipulated version of what the
board decided upon (thanks for the many footnotes which show this so
clearly): and SUBSTANTIALLY, this decision has to be reconsidered and
changed.

I do not share the idea that it might be good to split our submission
into two letters (as mentioned at the end). The strength of our draft is
that it puts everything into ONE document.

The sooner the document goes out finally, the better, I think.

Cheers,


Norbert Klein

=

Mary Wong wrote:
> Dear all,
>  
> Attached is an updated, substantially revised version of the letter
> (I've provided both a clean and redlined version, though with all the
> changes you're probably better off just reading the clean version!)
>  
> Here are a few "highlights":
>
> - I've tried to include as many of the comments received as possible;
> my apologies if I've omitted or misinterpreted anyone's suggestions.
> I've also added a few more footnotes and references to actual Board
> meeting minutes and other ICANN documents.
>  
> - I've beefed up and emphasized the "process" stuff and tried to link
> it with the points about continuing misperceptions, lack of parity and
> consequent injustice. I should say that this runs counter to Bill's
> excellent points (below), but for a number of reasons I went this
> route instead: mostly, I think that while our objections on the
> substance of the staff charter have already (at last in part) been
> aired, and virtually wholly put down in writing (eg. on the public
> comments forum), I don't believe anyone's put down in writing, much
> less in one document, all the process irregularities and
> resulting problems for NCUC.
>  
> I think focusing on the process side, and linking it to the
> misconceptions while removing references to how insulted we are, may
> work to force the Board to NOT dismiss the letter as "more rantings
> over the same old stuff by NCUC, who simply won't give up on their
> charter which we've already told them we don't like and won't adopt". 
>  
> Finally, well, it's 5.30 a.m. in Singapore, I simply can't trawl
> through ANY more ICANN documents (much less piece together numerous
> posts and comments), and the letter's already pretty long. We could
> consider sending it a 2nd letter focusing on the substantive
> allegations, though (but I doubt I'll have the bandwidth for that).
>  
> Thanks,
> Mary
>  


-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.

This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror:

Cambodia Made It Again into the International Media
http://tinyurl.com/m8n7je

(To read it, click on the line above.)

And here is something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com