Dear Robin:
Thanks for your note.
Firstly, I think it is important to state that contrary to the subject line of your email, I am not trying to stir up anything. It seems to me that it is not helpful to assume the worst with respect to the motivations of others, as it is my experience that one is likely to be wrong far more often than one is right, which is unfortunately the case here. You and I have known and worked with one another for almost ten years now, much longer than I have been involved in ICANN. During that time, I cannot think of any point at which we have suggested that the other persons motivations were anything other than as stated "on the tin."
Having reviewed your letter of 18th August 2009, I note that you have said in your point 3:
"Third, because of the danger of locking in a suboptimal structure, we ask you not to approve any new Constítuencies under the SIC and ICANN staff-imposed transitional NCSG charter until the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year."
I think it is therefore fair to say that where I said:
"… the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies for the two year Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Transition period. …"
I should have said:
"… the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies until "the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year""
As that would have precisely quoted you and what you said.
I am therefore happy to apologise for the above, which I hope you will accept; I have copied the same two mailing lists that the original email was sent to in order to ensure that everyone who received the original has received this reply. As I think my reply to the NCUC-Discuss list will bounce, I would be glad if you forwarded this note to that list too.
On a personal note, I look forward to seeing you in Seoul, and hope your travels are as comfortable as is possible on such a long flight.
I note you mis-state NCUC's position saying that we asked the board for no constituencies to be created for 2 years on the ALAC list:
That is simply not true. Staff continuing to repeat these divisive untrue statements, especially after having been told they are wrong is very frustrating and counter-productive to everyone.
NCUC was also concerned that the Board believed that untruth since it was in that letter that you mention. Therefore NCUC sent a response to the board to the letter you cite in hopes of clearing up the misperception (that you are trying to re-muddy here).
Would you please be so kind as to forward to the ALAC list where you just mis-quoted NCUC's position the attached NCUC response to clear up this misperception?