[NCUC-DISCUSS] important information

Thu Aug 11 18:36:29 CEST 2016

Hello Zakir,

Initially, we sent a private message to Peter to resign. Why? Because we
did not want Peter to be under public scrutiny. We had to make our email
public because unfortunately we did not receive a response from Peter
challenging us or resigning but we found out that other people have been
informed. We did not want some of our members to know about the issue while
others didn't hence had to announce it.

We are the executive committee elected by the constituency  (not appointed)
and we have to to make decisions. As to the procedural matters, first I
have to say I stand up for the principles of procedural justice and have
spent a long time working on them. But in this case, our members are
voicing concerns about   procedural matters which are very important in
many situations but in our situation, these procedural matters should be
considered in light of the nature of our functioning and work. I have
several remarks on this.

We are not an adversarial body, we are an executive committee. While we
have to observe the principles of procedural justice we can decide how we
approach issues and make decisions and of course provide plausible
rationales for those decisions. Not all procedural justice principles (I am
adamant not to use due process, I think it's the wrong usage) apply to
every situation. For example in the beginning, transparency would not have
been in favor of Peter. But we had to make the matter public because Peter
did not directly communicate with us.

In the beginning, EC decided not to make the matter public(because of the
reason I said above), communication took place between EC members
(respected his privacy and maintained confidentiality), told Peter the
basis of EC decision, one of the pillars of justice is to give reason for
the decision , and requested him to resign from EC (which is pragmatic
justice, clear instructions on what we wanted him to do).  Please note that
nothing is final at this stage.

You should also know that this issue was raised over a year ago when some
of us were not on the Executive Committee and Peter was warned about this.
We did not make a hasty decision.

What I have also been hearing is whether Peter had the chance to provide
evidence or defend himself. The decision to ask *Peter to resign from EC *(note
that he was asked to resign from EC not NCUC) has been made primarily based
on one fact that cannot be challenged nor defended: Peter is a full-time
employee of a registry. Based on our interpretation of the bylaws and
considering other matters such as the integrity of our constituency we
decided that Peter should *resign from EC. *

Some may dispute our decision and  might disagree that the fact that Peter
works for a registry and is in a leadership role at NCUC do not hamper our
integrity. I think it is necessary for us to discuss things with our
members and inform them of the decisions which I have tried to actively do
and we need to listen to our members and members should be able to
challenge us. However, in the end, EC has to make a decision. At the moment
the mechanism to challenge and hold the EC accountable as Milton said is
through elections. If the majority of members are concerned with the way EC
makes decisions then they can vote against them. If it gets to the point
that members do not see elections as a sufficient tool or optimal, some
other measures maybe considered.

EC should and we try our best to take fair decisions.

The next step for us (EC) is to have a meeting with Peter. This meeting
will be transcribed and notes will be taken.

Best

Farzaneh

On 11 August 2016 at 02:31, Zakir Syed <zakirbinrehman at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Farzaneh, Thanks for that info.
> Was wondering, why not to wait for a response from Peter first.
> Just if Peter resigns (he has not - as you said) the Article VII will do.
> But if, there is a response/explanation from Peter and no resignation, I
> don't think the Article VII will do. I could be wrong though. Also, what is
> going to be the tool for taking the "next steps". I mean, do we have
> anything for such a scenario in the bylaws? If not, what happens.
>
> Best,
> Zakir
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> *To:* KASWESHA <kaswesha at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 8, 2016 3:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] important information
>
> Dear Kaswesha,
>
> Let me clarify that we have requested Peter to resign from NCUC EC but
> Peter has not resigned yet, so we are yet to take the next steps.
>
> NCUC Bylaws have predicted processes in case of a member leaves office
> (Article VII) .According to Article VII(section E), as we have less than 6
> months to the EC elections, no early elections are needed and the chair may
> appoint a temporary replacement.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On 8 August 2016 at 12:05, KASWESHA <kaswesha at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Noted Rafik. Does this mean we have a by-election to replace Peter? Or How
> does work?
>
>
> James Njoroge
>
> *Cell-Phone +254 722 212171 or +254 721 274273*
>
> Before printing this mail make sure it is completely necessary. THE
> ENVIRONMENT IS EVERY ONE'S BUSINESS.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear members:
>
> I am sharing with you an important and extraordinary announcement. Last
> week the NCUC EC agreed to ask one of its members, Peter Green, to resign.
> It was not an easy act or one that we took lightly, and we had to think
> about it for some time. Our action was necessary because of an undeclared
> conflict of interest and a clash with our membership eligibility rules.
>
> Peter is an employee of CONAC, a TLD registry associated with the
> government of China. As a CONAC employee, he is an active member of and
> participant in the Registry Stakeholder Group. It has been a longstanding
> principle of NCUC membership eligibility rules that people or organizations
> that are members of another SG or constituency in the GNSO cannot also be
> members of NCUC (bylaws III.3). This is done to prevent other interest
> groups from attempting to control or unduly shape our Constituency, which
> is devoted to noncommercial user interests.
>
> Peter has been actively working on behalf of the Registry SG for some
> time, even as he has been serving on our Executive Committee. This is
> evident from articles such as this
> http://www.chinagov.cn/english /News/CONACNews/201509/t201509
> 24_281168.html
> <http://www.chinagov.cn/english/News/CONACNews/201509/t20150924_281168.html>
> and from records of the registry constituency working group such as this https://community.icann.org/di
> splay/S1SF/Drafting+Team
> <https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Drafting+Team>
> We note with concern that Peter's Conflict of Interest statement when
> running for election to the NCUC EC failed to mention his employment at
> CONAC.
>
> I wanted you to be aware of this issue and to understand the basis for our
> actions.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik Dammak
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Dear Peter (Zuan Zhang):
> For some time we (the undersigned representatives of the Executive
> Committee) have received complaints or expressions of concern about your
> eligibility for membership in the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. The EC
> has investigated this matter and has come to the conclusion that you are
> ineligible for NCSG membership and thus must resign from the NCUC Executive
> Committee immediately.
> We want to make it clear that this is not caused by any misconduct on your
> part; it is purely a matter of applying our eligibility rules. Your
> contribution to our EC has been exemplary, but we cannot continue to
> contradict our membership rules. This would open the door to many other
> ineligible members and possible abuses. We hope you can accept this
> decision in a good spirit.
> Section 2.2.2 of the NCSG charter specifically excludes from membership
> "Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting
> Organization."
> Section 2.2.5 of the NCSG charter makes it clear that individuals are
> eligible only if they are "not represented in ICANN through membership in
> another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group."
> As an employee of CONAC, you are a member of the Registry stakeholder
> group and have played an active role representing CONAC in the Registry
> Stakeholder Group (RSG). CONAC is a domain name registry, which has its own
> Stakeholder Group, where your affiliation with CONAC as an employee is
> persistent and strong. We understand that before CONAC was a TLD registry,
> its employees were admitted into NCSG because there was no other place for
> them to be represented and there was less of a conflict of interest. But
> that time has passed; CONAC is now a full-fledged TLD registry operator and
> its policy interests are represented in the RSG.
> We thank you for your prior participation in our group and encourage you
> to stay involved in the GNSO via the Registry Stakeholder Group.
> Farzaneh Badii
> Caribe Joao Carlos
> Rafik Dammak
> Grace Githaiga
> Milton Mueller
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160811/5834e4c5/attachment.html>