We will have the opportunity in filing the ombudsman's complaint to  
get the numerous details and background information (particularly on  
the procedural irregularities by staff) before the board.  Since the  
board members also receive a copy of the ombudsman's complaint, they  
will also have been provided with that information as well.

We can approach this effort from many angles simultaneously: i) the  
letter to the board/CEO; ii) ombudsman complaint; iii) press releases  
& media awareness; iv) raising awareness among government  
representatives, etc.

The letter to the board is far from the end of this issue.

Best,
Robin


On Aug 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, ron wickersham wrote:

> Yes.
>
> i believe that this version emphasizes the important points and  
> offers a
> "compromise" by suggesting that the board can proceed with TLDs, etc.
> but limit the potential damage to non-commercial parties with the more
> rapid review and delay of competiting constituencies.
>
> while it expressly claims it doesn't ask the board to recind it's  
> decision, it certainly demands a substantial revision.
>
> i liked the flow of Mary's draft and the exposition that filled in
> un-informed board members of how we reached this point in time, but
> recognize that the current draft reads quicker, and that if the
> direct meeting with the board comes about, then the opportunity to
> put those points will fall on those who present out views at the
> meeting, so hope that the board (as a whole - as requested) chooses
> to listen at the upcomming meeting in Seoul and acts favorable on
> the other two points (whether they are called repeals or modifications
> or other descriptive terms).
>
> -ron




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: [log in to unmask]