Susan Kawaguchi misleads the GNSO Council on yesterday's call as to Recommendation #5 and "consensus"
Hi folks, Yesterday, GNSO Council had a call, where the IGO PDP was a topic. See: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-August/021686.html for links to the Adobe Connect and MP3, etc. The IGO PDP topic started at around 1:21:25 into the Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/ At 1:21:25 into the Adobe Connect recording, Susan made a clearly false statement regarding Recommendation #5, stating there "was not really a consensus on" it! We know for a fact that Recommendation #5 reached consensus. See page 6 of the Final Report at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-July/021597.html which was posted to the GNSO Council. I found it shocking that Susan would make such an obviously false statement. I was listening to the call "live", and emailed her (and Heather, Rafik and Donna) immediately, asking her to correct her false statement (perhaps she intended to say "Full Consensus" -- Recommendation #1 did reach "Full Consensus", and all the other recommendations reached "Consensus"). She did not do so before the end of that call, nor since. I ask that she correct her statement now, lest the GNSO Council continue to be misled by her false statement. Failure to do so would imply that it wasn't an innocent misstatement, but is instead a deliberate falsehood. As an aside, I'll note that the GNSO Council didn't vote on the Final Report in July's GNSO Council meeting, nor at yesterday's call. Nor are they likely to vote on anything at the next call in September, given yesterday barely scratched the surface on the topic (probably most GNSO Council members haven't even read the report yet). Yesterday's call was all about process (and trying to undermine the report), rather than actual policy and substance. This provides further support for the email I sent in July about the premature deadline for our report: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001385.html how our PDP was duped into producing a rushed and half-ready report for no good reason. Susan was right about one thing on yesterday's call, though. There will be at least one more "minority" (really a "majority") report to come, to attempt to put on the record before GNSO Council (and ultimately the Board) what should have been in the Final Report, namely the strong reasoning and justification for our recommendations. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Typo as to the exact time of the false statement. It was at 1:22:25 into the Adobe Connect recording (i.e. approximately 1 minute after Susan started talking about the IGO PDP, which began at 1:21:25). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Yesterday, GNSO Council had a call, where the IGO PDP was a topic. See:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-August/021686.html
for links to the Adobe Connect and MP3, etc.
The IGO PDP topic started at around 1:21:25 into the Adobe Connect recording:
https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/
At 1:21:25 into the Adobe Connect recording, Susan made a clearly false statement regarding Recommendation #5, stating there "was not really a consensus on" it!
We know for a fact that Recommendation #5 reached consensus. See page 6 of the Final Report at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-July/021597.html
which was posted to the GNSO Council.
I found it shocking that Susan would make such an obviously false statement.
I was listening to the call "live", and emailed her (and Heather, Rafik and Donna) immediately, asking her to correct her false statement (perhaps she intended to say "Full Consensus" -- Recommendation #1 did reach "Full Consensus", and all the other recommendations reached "Consensus"). She did not do so before the end of that call, nor since.
I ask that she correct her statement now, lest the GNSO Council continue to be misled by her false statement. Failure to do so would imply that it wasn't an innocent misstatement, but is instead a deliberate falsehood.
As an aside, I'll note that the GNSO Council didn't vote on the Final Report in July's GNSO Council meeting, nor at yesterday's call. Nor are they likely to vote on anything at the next call in September, given yesterday barely scratched the surface on the topic (probably most GNSO Council members haven't even read the report yet). Yesterday's call was all about process (and trying to undermine the report), rather than actual policy and substance. This provides further support for the email I sent in July about the premature deadline for our report:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001385.html
how our PDP was duped into producing a rushed and half-ready report for no good reason.
Susan was right about one thing on yesterday's call, though. There will be at least one more "minority" (really a "majority") report to come, to attempt to put on the record before GNSO Council (and ultimately the Board) what should have been in the Final Report, namely the strong reasoning and justification for our recommendations.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (1)
-
George Kirikos