Re: [ALAC] NCUC Response to Board Letter
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 ConstÃtuencies 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. From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 21 October 2009 15:54 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Alan Greenberg; William Drake; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Rod Beckstrom Subject: NCUC Response to Board Letter & why is staff trying to stir up trouble again? Nick: 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: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20... 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? Thank you, Robin
Hello, On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
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.
Please bear in mind that the NCUC letter is building off of the SIC/ staff transitional charter's language and other info we've received about the timeline for a review. However, once again, this does not mean that NCUC prefers an extended timeline for revising the charter consensually and launching qualifying constituencies thereafter. As I said to to Roberto the other day on this list, one of the disconnects concerns On Oct 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, William Drake wrote:
*Whether constituencies should be formed soon under the SIC/staff transitional charter, rather than waiting a little while until a mutually satisfactory final arrangement can be arrived at. We remain concerned that doing it under the SIC/staff version would lock that in and make a joint review and revision impossible. The timing here is up to you folks on the board, not us. We'd prefer to resolve things with you ASAP, and constituency launches could then proceed as soon as there are viable proposals. Unfortunately, I think NCUC folks have contributed to confusion on this point by saying the review should happen within a year, which some have processed as meaning we want to wait a year before anything can be launched. Within a year doesn't mean in a year, we can do this as soon as you're ready.
That is, in Seoul or anytime soon thereafter. Best, Bill
participants (2)
-
Nick Ashton-Hart -
William Drake