[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Faleshood by Heather Forrest on GNSO Council call of today

Fri Feb 15 14:40:08 UTC 2019

Hi folks,

The recording of the Feb 14, 2019 GNSO Council call has now been posted, see:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb
https://participate.icann.org/p4l6mtg2t5n/ (Adobe Connect Recording)

IGO PDP content begins at: 1:10:30 (1 hour and 10 minutes into the
Adobe Connect recording), and runs to the end of the call (well worth
listening to in its entirety -- transcript of entire call should be
available soon).

Heather Forrest's demonstrably false statement about can be heard at
1:18:55 into the Adobe Connect recording:

"ultimately voted upon by less than 10 people"

At that point, since I was listening to it "live", I rapidly sent the
earlier email (first email in this thread) to the IGO PDP mailing list
(and cc'd Keith, Heather, Pam and Rafik), where Heather would have
realized and understood she was caught making the false statement.

At 1:44:40, Heather jumps back in, claiming to be trying to be
"absolutely precise" and says she'll post the link to the consensus
call numbers (which I had sent by email already, which had all the
citations from the mailing list posts in the Google Spreadsheet, and
which clearly she received, otherwise she wouldn't be backtracking).

At 1:47:15 or so, ratherthan posting a link to those consensus call
numbers, she posts the following in the chat pod at the bottom left:

Heather Forrest: Membership of the Curative Rights PDP:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895

which is merely the list of all members of the IGO PDP, and *not* the
results of the consensus call (which she obviously already had, given
I emailed them to her).

If one jumps to 1:53:30 into the recording and watches the chat pod in
the bottom left, she posts:

"Heather Forrest: Sorry all - I am trying to multitask and find the
voting outcomes while following the discussion, but it's taking me a
while (clearly my Council multitasking skills have weakened!)

Heather Forrest: I'll post them as soon as I find them"

(obviously she didn't need to "find them", as they were in the
spreadsheet link I emailed!)

Later, she typed into the chat pod:

"Heather Forrest: Mary's voting points are excellent and timely - I
was looking for the membership of the group at the time of  finalising
the Final Report

Heather Forrest: Nothing further from me, Keith, but always happy to
be helpful to the Council whenever you all decide"

But never did she post the actual results of the consensus call, which
she had at her fingertips.

Elsa's comments about "backchannel sabotage" can be heard starting at
1:36:55 or so (with that magical phrase at 1:37:40).

I ask that these emails be forwarded to the GNSO Council mailing list,
so that they have the true facts and numbers (so far, none of these
emails have been forwarded to GNSO Council --- I wonder why?).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:57 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at team.neustar" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, Heather
> Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com"
> <rafik.dammak at 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 at 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-0i3FsammN5q-iD1QCQ_EMBC8LTzZ30TGvrf6Fw_mUvlnHa9DV9/pubhtml
> >
> > 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/