<div>Renata,</div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>Please do not insinuate that I do not "put in the work" already. I focus my energy on our important policy work, and do not want to have to worry about the politics of keeping the EC in check. I have enough to do already. I just wish
this EC would follow the operating procedures and not challenge members to try to remove them for not following said procedures. Your attitude alone is one of, "Try me." You’re calling on someone to waste their time and energy removing
you from office. As I have repeatedly said, I do not want to remove anyone from office, I just want there to be better judgement displayed — transparency by default, and following the procedures which members have crafted. I don’t understand
why this doesn’t just happen. Two reasons come to mind; either you aren’t familiar with the procedures, or are familiar and don’t care to follow them. </div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>Ayden</div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div id="protonmail_mobile_signature_block">Sent from ProtonMail Mobile</div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<br />
</div>On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <<a href="mailto:raquino@gmail.com" class="">raquino@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">Hi Ayden Well, as I have mentioned to you before, we have procedures for appealing EC decisions, for EC member and Chair removal. Should you wish to initiate them, put on the work. Otherwise, NCUC will move on as it has been doing: with all members
together being part of the processes. Best, Renata On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline
<icann@ferdeline.com>wrote: > Renata, > > My email would pass a fact check - I stand by my claims in it. Anyway, you and Michael have no shame, and perceive any legitimate criticism of your collective poor leadership and incredibly poor judgement as an attack
on the NCUC. The only attack on the NCUC has come from yourselves. How you manipulate processes and misappropriate resources for your own self-benefit is the real attack on the NCUC. > > Ayden > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On 20 June 2018 1:07 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
<raquino@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> Ayden >> >> Your email brings so many stories that are simply untrue. >> >> You have supported me, yes. But that doesn't mean everything I will do >> >> with Chair
will be at your bidding. >> >> I have explained over and over again that the NCUC IGF Proposal went >> >> through the proper channels and that even with a time crunch the EC >> >> decided to send it.
>> >> All the EC has also acknowledged time constraints to be an issue and >> >> expressed to be paying attention to that from now on. >> >> The rest what follows is just over-engineered to direct at
me some of >> >> your best constructions of an alternate reality to disqualify the work >> >> of NCUC. >> >> 1. I have never advocated for a division between NCUC and NCSG. I >> >> will,
always, advocate for a better NCUC and our Constituency identity >> >> is important. That won't change. >> >> 2. NCUC has a great relationship with NPOC and that won't change >> >> either. We have collaborated
before and will continue to do so in >> >> occasions when this is important. The same with NCSG. >> >> 3. I find it interesting you questioning NCUC participation in WSIS >> >> (which also went through
all the proper channels), when your first >> >> participation on an NCUC workshop at WSIS was one I proposed. So what >> >> changed now? Just because you are not the one to be the speaker I >> >> have,
somehow "lost my values"? Same applies to NCUC Rightscon and >> >> IGF2018 proposals? >> >> 4. To indicate that any opinion I might have on the dot-amazon case >> >> means that I am using NCUC for personal
gain is way over stretched. >> >> There is manifesto signed by a dozen of NCUC members, among other >> >> groups, just stating that more debates on new gTLDs is important, I >> >> have not signed in
the position of NCUC Chair. NCUC does its policies >> >> via stakeholder group level via PC NCSG, where you participate in. >> >> Maybe you are assuming already the result of WT5 and the positions >> >>
NCUC will take while the group is still doing its work? >> >> 5. I have stated first than you that PC NCSG archives are open and >> >> invited members to apply. If anything good came from your >> >>
reputation-bashing of me, is that people caught an eye of the position >> >> open and now we have some candidates. Good. We (NCUC) seriously need >> >> better people. >> >> 6. The IGF MAG does not have
a mentor for new MAG members process. You >> >> are way out of line and delusional here. Fortunately, all the archives >> >> are open there too so anyone can also see this is all part of your >> >> campaign
to weaken NCUC. >> >> You have been unsuccessful. NCUC is stronger than ever and will >> >> always do its best for our members. >> >> Renata >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Ayden
Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com wrote: >> >> >> > Renata, >> > >> > I’m really disappointed in what you have written in this thread and how you have handled this situation. I do not like how you try
to divide us. I think it is unbecoming of your position and unbecoming of who you are. >> > >> > It is not difficult to decipher that much of the coded language in this thread is directed at me, though only on this occasion
- there seems to be a long list of people who you cannot work with. But I would like to make something very clear: I am an NCUC member and have been for nearly three years now. You do not recognise this. You say that I am an NCSG member
(which is true, because to be an NCUC member one must be a part of the NCSG), but this does not take away from the fact that I have proudly undertaken outreach for the NCUC and recruited new members to our constituency. >> > >>
> However, I do recognise the synergies that the NCUC has with our colleagues in NPOC and think we are stronger together (we can never have enough allies), which is why I also work at the NCSG level. I have never taken a position contrary
to the values that the NCUC advocates for. And I think this is the crux of the problem. >> > >> > I am not sure you know what our positions are, and this has created problems. You proposed a WSIS session earlier in the
year under the NCUC moniker which put forward your personal position on .Amazon — a position on geographic names which was at odds with what the NCUC had historically advocated for. This was a position that the NCUC has developed based
on an analysis of the evidence, not on emotion. Since then, you have sought to isolate the NCUC from the NCSG, trying to see the NCUC develop policy positions in a vacuum separately from the NCSG. While I understand we all have personal
perspectives on issues, this behaviour is disappointing in a Chair, because you are either unable or unwilling to recognise this conflict of interest. You have sought to divide the NCSG just because you have a personal disagreement on
one policy position. >> > >> > I think your comments in this thread about the Policy Committee are without merit. The archives for the Policy Committee are open and anyone can see how our positions are developed — based
on facts, not emotion, and a careful analysis of the issues. We have hundreds of posts there every month — compare the transparency here with that of the NCUC Executive Committee which you lead, where you frequently take conversations
off-list and little of substance is made public. >> > >> > As for the suggestion that no one is expressing interest in representing the NCUC on the NCSG Policy Committee, maybe you should do some internal reflection,
Renata. You were complaining two months ago that no one signed up to your buddy-mentor program either. No one volunteered initially for the Finance Committee. You have struggled with other appointments. Perhaps your capacity development
programs just do not work, or no one sees the value in stepping forward, given your propensity to speak about people who you disagree with in coded language, and to allocate resources primarily to yourself or the EC. >> > >>
> You have also had difficulties on the IGF MAG, complaining of a hostile environment, and I understand you managed to alienate yourself from your mentor there. Perhaps the issue is not everyone else. There's no "hidden agenda to crush
NCUC initiatives" and the suggestion itself is ridiculous. There is, however, a view that I hold that you do not encapsulate the values that the NCUC has historically advocated. >> > >> > I'm so disappointed, Renata.
I nominated you for the EC back in 2016 and did so again last year. I thought you'd do a good job. I wish that I had known how you would try to divide the NCSG and put forward positions inconsistent with what the NCUC has stood for. >>
> >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Ayden Férdeline >> > >> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> > >> > On 12 June 2018 6:24 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> > > Farzaneh >> > > >> > > Nothing makes sadder as well. >> > > >> > > Trust is difficult to obtain when a group leader is subject to >> > > >>
> > repeated accusations which are, themselves, carrying another agenda >> > > >> > > which has nothing to do with what they are about. >> > > >> > > I would also hope the reluctants
change their mind and face the >> > > >> > > challenge to apply for PC NCSG, that they contact you or Rafik. >> > > >> > > I have given enough explanations already on how short we are on
>> > > >> > > volunteers and how pressed for time some production on NCUC is done. >> > > >> > > But I suspect there's a hidden agenda to crush NCUC initiatives, >> > > >>
> > whether on Rightscon, IGF or ABRs. >> > > >> > > Well, we will always try to share materials with our members with >> > > >> > > better deadlines but we won't stop with our own
initiatives and >> > > >> > > Constituency identity. >> > > >> > > I do hope our umbrella organization supports us on having our own initiatives. >> > > >> > > Best,
>> > > >> > > Renata >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:54 PM, farzaneh badii >> > > >> > > farzaneh.badii@gmail.com wrote: >> > > >> >
> > Renata >> > > > >> > > > This actually saddens me. Previously, we rarely had NCSG v. NCUC problems. >> > > > >> > > > or when we had, we transparently resolved them.
Those members who are >> > > > >> > > > criticizing the NCUC EC actions are in fact NCUC members, any members' call >> > > > >> > > > to hold you accountable fair or unfair should
be responded to, just like >> > > > >> > > > other leaders did in the past. Members criticism should not be called >> > > > >> > > > "attack" "aggression" or "bullying". Because
then how are we supposed to be >> > > > >> > > > accountable to the members if we frame their criticism as such? >> > > > >> > > > We had exactly the same transparency issue last
year when I was NCUC chair, >> > > > >> > > > we were challenged by the then NCSG chair. we resolved it. Members just need >> > > > >> > > > a response and promise that it will
get better. >> > > > >> > > > The accusations of "unsafe environment" and "bullying" are serious. You >> > > > >> > > > cannot just throw them out there without concrete and strong
evidence, it is >> > > > >> > > > unfair on NCSG and NCSG PC. >> > > > >> > > > I have always asked you to put those who would like to be engaged in policy >> > >
> >> > > > in touch with us. Rafik never ever gives up reaching out to people and >> > > > >> > > > informing members. I even joined the NCUC buddy mentor program to help >> > >
> >> > > > people get engaged. yes NCSG PC carries out a bulk of the policymaking and >> > > > >> > > > has the authority to pass the public comments as NCSG comments. It is not so >>
> > > >> > > > nice to see that the public comment you have written is not being accepted >> > > > >> > > > or being changed but this is the nature of writing public comments. So many
>> > > > >> > > > people who are now NCSG/NCUC veterans had their public comments altered or >> > > > >> > > > not approved. [one example is happening now, we are commenting on
what Ayden >> > > > >> > > > has drafted and not accepting everything he has written] But this is the >> > > > >> > > > nature of a consensus process. I am to be included in the
ones who had their >> > > > >> > > > public comment amended or simply not approved! Is that being hostile? If >> > > > >> > > > not, what is? >> > > > >>
> > > Members can always join policy development groups, bring issues to the >> > > > >> > > > attention of NCUC and NCSG and we are always open to suggestions. >> > > > >> >
> > As I told you, if you would like to criticize my actions or if you think I >> > > > >> > > > am doing something wrong as the NCSG chair, please feel free to bring them >> > > > >>
> > > up. I can make things better, and I can provide an explanation. However, I >> > > > >> > > > do not tolerate baseless accusations against NCSG PC, against NCUC members >> > > >
>> > > > or against NCSG members. >> > > > >> > > > As to your policy committee candidate that you cannot find, welcome to the >> > > > >> > > > club, it is not
easy to have active members who are willing to step up and >> > > > >> > > > spend time on this. But I have also talked to a couple of people about this >> > > > >> > > > position
and they did not mention they were intimidated by PC. One actually >> > > > >> > > > was going to apply ... >> > > > >> > > > I will stand ready to respond to any question regarding
NCSG. As long as the >> > > > >> > > > questions are based on the actions that have been taken and not just >> > > > >> > > > misinterpretation and accusations. >> >
> > >> > > > Farzaneh >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > >
> >> > > > > Hi Rafik >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm sorry, just as you are, that the PC NCSG selection is one of the >> > > > > >> > > > > aspects
impacted by the exchanges of email recently done here. >> > > > > >> > > > > On my part, I've answered over and over again the emails and still >> > > > > >> > > > >
they keep coming. >> > > > > >> > > > > So yes, it is perceived by the members as bullying and unsafe >> > > > > >> > > > > environment and they do reach out to me
in private. >> > > > > >> > > > > They wouldn't reach out to PC NCSG Chair because they aren't even >> > > > > >> > > > > candidates there on the 1st, no matter how
much I try to assure, just >> > > > > >> > > > > like you, that the archives are open and they can see how things go >> > > > > >> > > > > along. >> > >
> > >> > > > > This is just the truth and I am opening this because we need to deal with >> > > > > >> > > > > it. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best,
>> > > > > >> > > > > Renata >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak@gmail.com >> > > > > >> >
> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Renata, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I just finished the Council extraordinary call and it is already 23:00
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > but I >> > > > > > >> > > > > > felt the need to respond here as you are making dangerous statements. >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > I may understand that you feel attacked and questioned but anyone in a >> > > > > > >> > > > > > leadership position can tell you that they have faced
that in time and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > has >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to deal with it. We all faced that at some time during our terms. is it >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > pleasant? of course not but as leaders, we got to respond calmly and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > explain >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > our reasons. we may be right or wrong but at the end, that doesn't >> > > > > > >> > > > > > matter, >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > but we owe responses to our members as part of accountability and being >> > > > > > >> > > > > > responsible. I have no position on the issue faced by the EC to be >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > shared on >> > > > > > >> > > > > > the list and only wish them good luck and I am pretty sure of theirs >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > genuine >> > > > > > >> > > > > > reasons. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You are bringing NCSG PC to this issue which is unfair and
without any >> > > > > > >> > > > > > valid >> > > > > > >> > > > > > reason. As I am the NCSG Policy Committee chair, I am trying to >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > understand >> > > > > > >> > > > > > what you mean by bullies there and take responsibility if there is any >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > problem. If someone has an issue or complaint, he or she can report that >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
NCSG chair and/or to me when needed and they can be ensured that their >> > > > > > >> > > > > > inquiry will be taken into account and seriously investigated. I don't >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > think >> > > > > > >> > > > > > going through 3rd party is the right way to do so. Some discussion can >> > > > > > >> > >
> > > be >> > > > > > >> > > > > > tense but I don't recall anyone dismissed, attacked or pushed. people >> > > > > > >> > > > > > can >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > check the PC list as all our deliberations are there or check the >> > > > > > >> > > > > > recordings >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > of NCSG policy call as we discuss policy matters there. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to be honest what you are saying is definitely an attack and >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > unfortunately >> > > > > > >> > > > > > trying to deflect an issue you have on another group. That is really >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > inappropriate and not helpful. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Rafik >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 à 22:32, Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino@gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> écrit : >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, the Chair opposed this statement. >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I believe all the conversation on time constraints on volunteers and >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > NCUC production has been addressed, multiple
times. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I also believe it is very comfortable to hide behind accusations of >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > lack
of transparency when one did not contribute to writing ABRs or >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > getting into an agreement about an NCUC IGF Proposal. >> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > NCSG is our umbrella organization and members who are more active >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > there just come here to intimidate and attack. >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > We have close to zero candidates to PC NCSG Committee because no one >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wants to work with bullies
there. I spend half of my time replying to >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > members who feel that these attacks are out of line. >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > I will not empower these attacks. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Renata >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org >> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> > > > > >> > > > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > > > >> > > > > Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org
>> > > > > >> > > > > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> > > >> > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > >> > > Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org
>> > > >> > > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > >
</raquino@gmail.com>
</icann@ferdeline.com>
</blockquote>
</div>