Re: [bc-gnso] Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
Hello, I will note Philip made a response at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00196.html which I find entirely unacceptable. I would like the 2 other officers to confirm the assertion Philip made that it was a joint decision that all 3 made on behalf of the constituency, without the required vote. I will note we had 5 people (more than 10%) supporting my statement, namely: 1. George Kirikos -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00153.html 2. Mike O'Connor -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00154.html 3. Phil Corwin -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00155.html 4. Rick Anderson -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00156.html 5. David Castello -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00164.html We also had Liz Williams noting the lack of agreement in the constituency, and not supporting any of the statements, which adds to the "split" percentage: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00165.html You will note that Philip didn't simply make a statement "at an ICANN meeting on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting", because the Board wasn't making any decision one way or the other on the IRT. There was no urgency. They were waiting until all comments came in by the deadline. Nothing was being decided by the Board. I don't see any statement posted by the Registrars Constituency, Registry Constituency, or any other of the constituencies. Only the BC of all the constituencies has posted a statement to the comments archive: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/ If there was a quasi-deadline before the Board meeting, obviously every other constituency would have raced to also submit their statement. They did not, though. Thus, Philip's statement simply makes no sense and doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny. I am open to suggestions on how we should proceed next. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/