[NCUC-DISCUSS] important information

Thu Aug 11 19:55:26 CEST 2016

Couldn't agree more with you Stefania!

-Raoul

On 11 August 2016 at 20:52, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> As a former EC member, I served with Peter in the past, and I had the
> chance to appreciate his contributions to the good functioning of NCUC.
> However, I myself was puzzled by his "double" function in more than one
> occasion...
>
> This time, though, I would like to take the opportunity to thank our EC
> and our chairman for taking their role seriously, and, even in the middle
> of the (Northern) summer, starting such a complex and painful process like
> the removal of a member of the EC. I trust our current EC in their analysis
> of the situation, as well as in their ability to uphold due process. While
> I appreciate the concerns of Kathy and many of our members (accountability
> works this way, too!), I wish to express my gratitude for the time,
> dedication, and energies the EC is putting into this. I particularly
> appreciate the commitment to transparency that the way this is handled
> speaks to.
>
> We should try to remember this is in no way an attack on Peter as a
> persona and a valuable NCUC/NCSG member, but a much-needed assessment of
> our rules and our role as the non-commercial community within ICANN (and in
> the various PDPs).
>
> My two cents, Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> per conto di
> farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> Inviato: giovedì 11 agosto 2016 18.36.29
> A: Zakir Syed
> Cc: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Oggetto: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] important information
>
> 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:
> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
> To: KASWESHA <kaswesha at gmail.com<mailto:kaswesha at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>" <
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto: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<mailto:kas
> wesha 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<
> mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160811/75d0f8d1/attachment.html>