Re: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
- To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:27:30 -0500
what up with this? seems like you're running a bit ahead of our
position here. 'seems to me that George is right, you have 10% of the
membership supporting a different view. wouldn't that call for a
vote? you want to comment?
i guess another question is in order -- why such haste? we have a
couple weeks before the comment period is over -- plenty of time to
poll the group, no?
On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:37 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
I am literally shocked to see that Philip has submitted a statement on
behalf of the BC on the IRT, see:
"The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated
in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is a productive step
forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs."
in particular given that 5 BC members (more than 10%) did not support
that statement, and indeed supported my alternate proposal. Section
7.4 of our charter is explicit:
"Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency
of more than 10% of the number of paid-up members, there will then be
a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position."
There has been no such vote.
Philip needs to explain why he should not be disciplined under 3.6 of
our charter, for making such a statement on behalf of the
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,