Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1e3625ade5828a7874330938baf0d27b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi folks, I am literally shocked to see that Philip has submitted a statement on behalf of the BC on the IRT, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00087.html saying: "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: http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm "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 constituency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6d21d8b8f92f89e340dc88e5b6d6f3f6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Philip?? 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? mikey On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:37 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
I am literally shocked to see that Philip has submitted a statement on behalf of the BC on the IRT, see:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00087.html
saying:
"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:
http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm
"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 constituency.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/30c99adfb0e1489824f0e5c8b0607e32.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Philip: 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 Partner 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@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos [icann@leap.com] 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: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00087.html saying: "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: http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm "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 constituency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1e3625ade5828a7874330938baf0d27b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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/
participants (3)
-
George Kirikos
-
Mike O'Connor
-
Phil Corwin