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) --