ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?

  • To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>, BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
  • From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:36:24 -0400


Can you please respond to the matter that George has raised? If you believe he 
is wrong in his allegation that BC rules have not been properly observed we 
would like to have your point of view. If, on the other hand, our rules have 
not been followed it seems to us that the proper way to deal with this would be 
to immediately file a statement retracting the BC position filed yesterday, 
noting that it had not been properly approved by BC members, and to proceed to 
conducting a formal vote of the entire BC membership on this matter. 

If a vote is to be conducted we would appreciate some procedural background 
regarding the manner in which that is undertaken and the time period provided 
for it.

Thank you.

Philip S. Corwin
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office)
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George 
Kirikos [icann@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:37 AM
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?

Hi folks,

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


George Kirikos

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy