On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree we should add this point in to the letter about the 2 other SG's adopting the SG approach we formulated, but we were singularly denied. We may also want to add in a section that goes into the merits / arguments why the civil society charter is a better model than the staff drafted charter (encouraging fragmentation v. unity, etc.). Thanks, Robin > 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 having never really been considered because it was superseded by 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. 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]