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

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

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/