P.S. As for general claims during today's GNSO Council call about "low participation", I pointed out how that was false in April 2018, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001112.html when I compared the IGO PDP's attendance to the successfully completed IRTP-D, where the average attendance per meeting of the IGO PDP *exceeded* that of the IRTP-D (i.e. 10.01 attendees per meeting for the IGO PDP, vs. 9.88 for the IRTP-D). Even if we update those stats to the most recent attendance records of the IGO PDP: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records one gets 777 (sum of total attended column) divided by 78 meetings = 9.96 attendees per meeting, still greater than the IRTP-D PDP. The above email was sent not only to the public mailing list of the IGO PDP in April 2018, but was also cc'd to: "Donna.Austin@team.neustar" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, "rafik.dammak@gmail.com" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> so, they should already have known that any claims of low participation were false, but were instead just a tactic to try to delegitimize the PDP by opponents of the outcome. As Elsa stated properly on today's GNSO Council call, opponents of the outcome should not try to manipulate the results at council via "backchannel sabotage." In October 2017, when the current minority thought that they were in the majority on Recommendation #5, none of these concerns were expressed. These are all after-the-results "backchannel sabotage" (to use Elsa's phrase) because they could not convince the rest of the members of this PDP (who formed a strong broad consensus across multiple stakeholder groups for a different solution) that their proposed solution was worth supporting. Please forward this to the GNSO Council mailing list, so that they have the true facts and numbers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:23 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Heather just said on the GNSO Council call that fewer than 10 people voted in the consensus call, which is an outright falsehood. See:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj...
There were 15 people on the consensus call, which is higher than some past PDPs (to counter Keith's incorrect statement that it was a "small" group).
Please forward this to the rest of the GNSO Council mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/