That's great Evan, thanks!

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc. From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 10:30 am To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:

...

Thanks for this work Evan, in reference to:

<<staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings.>>

What is "disruptive" anyway? This is sooooo subjective. Agreed. But we won't know more until ICANN staff produces an on-the-record response to his allegations. In a private followup email, I specifically asked Richard, "Did you do *anything* that might have been grounds for them to call security? (ie, physical contact, meeting disruption, etc.)" His prompt, on-the-record reply was (repeated verbatim), "fuck no. i was the consumate professional. the only thing stacy complained to me about was "you came in here and asked when the meeting was without identifiying yourself!" As of this moment, this, and Richard's blog entry are the only public accounts of the ejection. The rebuttals I have heard have all been hearsay and off-the-record. I think the Registrars were disruptive in a number of our working groups and presentations. Disruptive could just mean he asked questions they didn't want to answer.

Trying to be fair, it's my understanding that the meeting was about process and not policy -- "how" rather than "why". If Richard went there demanding answers to policy related issues, that was unreasonable and unfair to the participants. However, we won't know the other side until ICANN gives us one. I am specifically asking from ICANN staff its on-the-record account of why Richard Sexton was ejected. - Evan