[NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: Re: important information - deep concerns about this action

[Carlos Afonso]

I think Kathy's arguments are well founded and I agree with her
conclusion. If we are going to question Peter, we first have to make
sure there is a violation, and according to Kathy's analysis of our
bylaws there isn't.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 10/08/2016 17:04, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Dear Milton,
> 
> One note, two clarifications and a detailed response below.
> 
> 
> Note: Tx you for clarifying that Rafik’s email did not concern his
> eligibility for NCSG membership or ask him to resign from NCSG. That was
> an issue of confusion, and thank you for clarifying.
> 
> Two clarifications:  a) Peter Green never asked me for help.Like others
> on the list, I am responding to Rafik's email to NCUC.  b) Of course,
> Network Solutions, Inc. and other companies wanted to join the NCUC in
> its early days. They pointed out to me that they had foundations and
> other forms of non-profit organizations, and would seek to enter NCUC if
> they could. (We were sometimes in different parts of the room :-) ). We
> wrote the rules to block this type of conduct, and we succeeded well.
> 
> Response:
> 
> Two things you point out in your response are very important: 1) that
> the issue before us is “whether Peter violates NCUC’s membership
> eligibility rules.” Agreed. And 2) that we must evaluate this issues
> based on the /current/ NCUC Bylaws. Also agreed. As you note, I did not
> play a role in the revision or expansion of the NCUC Bylaws to include
> individual members. I can only read them like everyone else.
> 
> So let’s read them together. Peter Green is listed as an Individual
> Member of the NCUC. Therefore, he is bound by Section III.H of the NCUC
> Bylaws for “Eligible Individuals.” Eligible individuals are those who
> “agree to advocate for a noncommercial public – interest position within
> the Constituency” and who fall within 1 of 3 categories. One of those
> categories is “An individuals who has registered domain name(s) for
> personal, family or noncommercial use. (I note that this section is
> written as an “Or” not an “And” – and therefore a member only has to
> match one of the three categories.)
> 
> I would respectfully submit that Peter Green HAS met his qualifications
> for membership. He is advocating for noncommercial public-interest
> positions in the NCUC, and we have seen him working on behalf of
> individuals and issues, and he has a domain name for personal, family or
> noncommercial use. He appears to meet the criteria set out by III.H.i.
> 
> Fairness
> 
> I took your email seriously, Milton, and went out to research last
> night. I checked the RySG membership Roster of the gTLD Registries
> Stakeholder Group. According to this membership roster, you are right
> that CONAC, the China Organizational Name Administration Center, is a
> member. I note that neither its Principal representative or Alternate
> representative is Peter Green. But you are correct that CONAC is a member.
> 
> Afilias is there too, and I note that our dear friend, amazing
> colleague, and Individual Member of the NCUC, Desiree Miloshevic, is a
> longtime employee of Afilias.
> 
> As I shared in my earlier email, New gTLDs create a new set of
> questions, concerns, issues and overlaps. I understand that NCUC EC is
> preparing a bylaws revision. I look forward to working with you to
> address the unique challenges of these special times!
> 
> But in the meantime, I respectfully submit that Peter has met the rules
> for Individual Membership in the NCUC.
> 
> Best regards, Kathy
> 
> On 8/9/2016 12:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Kathy,
>> I think you are distracting us from the only relevant issue. The issue
>> is whether Peter violates NCUC's membership eligibility rules. If he
>> does - and there is little doubt about that - he should resign from
>> the EC.
>> As the EC letter made clear, we aren't criticizing his character, we
>> are saying there is a clear conflict of interest in this case and the
>> EC needed to act on it.
>>
>> Please read the responses below:
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> Peter Green is a valued member of our SG who has served us well.
>>> He jumped in to run for the Executive Committee, to represent the
>>> interests
>>> of a huge continent too little represented in our work (Asia),
>> Peter doesn’t represent the Asian continent, he represents CONAC, a
>> Chinese government domain name registry. That is who pays his salary
>> and sends him to ICANN meetings for the past 3-4 years. The EC has in
>> its letter documented the extensive work he has done representing his
>> employer in the Registry SG. Further, by running for the EC position
>> he crowded out two other candidates from the Asia Pacific region, both
>> of whom were associated with legitimate and eligible nonprofit
>> organizations. He won that election by one vote, by the way.
>>
>>> I know the conflict provisions of the NCUC Bylaws well because, frankly,
>>> I drafted them into the NCUC charter years ago.
>> Kathy. WE drafted them, together. Sorry to be written out of your
>> version of history, but that's a fact. Further, when they were
>> modified to include individual members (you did not play a role in
>> that process) we were careful to include the same safeguards, knowing
>> that individual membership might also be exploited by other interest
>> groups to invade our constituency.
>>
>>> What happened then is that individuals and companies,
>>> including the then-giant Network Solutions, Inc., wanted to
>>> join every constituency.
>> Network Solutions never tried to join our constituency. Who did try to
>> join were ccTLD registries and registrars that were organized as
>> non-profits.
>> The situation was EXACTLY the same as Peter Green's now. You had
>> domain name industry organizations which could be fully represented in
>> the GNSO inside their own Registry or Registrar constituency, trying
>> to double dip by obtaining a position in our constituency. Not
>> surprisingly, those same organizations told us that we were not
>> eligible to join their constituency because we were not registries or
>> registrars. Do you understand the unfair power dynamics there? We
>> rejected it back then in 1999; the rationale is exactly the same now.
>>
>>> We created a rule then that you can only vote in one constituency.
>> No, read the rule. It says that you cannot be a MEMBER of another
>> constituency. It says (H.ii) "an individual internet user who is
>> primarily concerned with the public interest aspects of domain name
>> policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another
>> Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group.  The idea is clear:
>> no double-dipping in representation. It discourages attempts by other
>> interest groups to dilute or take over ours. It is not just the voting
>> representative.
>>
>>> But no one created a rule that you cannot attend the meetings of
>>> another constituency
>> This is not about meeting attendance, this is about holding an elected
>> office. Peter is welcome to continue attending our open public meetings.
>>
>>> Plus, the world has changed with New gTLDs:
>>> ...With the introduction of the New gTLDs, with overlapping ownership
>>> of registries and
>>> registrars, the following happened: registrars became registries, and
>>> registries became registrars.
>>> Further, many leading members of the Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>> went from commercial
>>> users to both commercial users AND registries  - such as Amazon and
>>> Google.
>>> Now everything is confused and people wear many hats!
>> No, everything is not confused. The principle remains the same as it
>> was before: no double-dipping in GNSO representation. If you are
>> working for a registry and representing registries or registrars or
>> other commercial interests, you are not eligible be a member of the
>> NCUC, and you certainly should not be on our Executive Committee. I am
>> disappointed that you seem to have abandoned your commitment to the
>> integrity of NCUC, which is one of the reasons why it has become so
>> successful within ICANN.
>>
>>> His employer is indeed CONAC, which calls itself the ".ORG of China."
>>> Indeed, CONAC handles the registration of thousands (tens of
>>> thousands) of
>>> noncommercial groups in China at the second level in .CN.
>> CONAC represents government agencies in China. It is more like .GOV
>> than .ORG. Please don't romanticize the situation in China. CONAC is
>> not .ORG, if you think it is I invite you to attempt to form an
>> independent civil society organization devoted to free expression in
>> China and then try to get a domain name from CONAC.
>>
>> But that doesn't really matter. Even if it was the equivalent of .ORG,
>> despite all the support we have received from Public Interest Registry
>> we would not allow PIR to join our constituency and elect one of its
>> employees to our leadership position, would we? Indeed PIR has never
>> attempted to do that. PIR has the integrity not to even attempt to do
>> that.
>>
>>> Accordingly, it would have been almost impossible for Peter,
>>> who speaks English as second (or maybe as a third or fourth)
>>> language to understand the nuances of the standard you have held him to.
>> If Peter is unable to understand our basic eligibility rules and
>> unable to speak for himself, then I am afraid you are not making a
>> very good case for his continuation on the Executive Committee.
>> I really think it should be Peter responding to the EC's message, not
>> you.
>>
>> As for this question:
>>
>>> Was Peter consulted in the NCUC Executive Committee review and given
>>> a chance to respond to your concerns?
>> Yes, he was sent the email privately and asked to respond. Instead of
>> responding to the EC he privately went to his patrons/backers (like
>> you) who then made an issue of the procedure used rather than his
>> eligibility. This shell game continues. I would ask you to stop that
>> game and allow Peter respond to the EC's request, on his own. Either
>> he is ineligible or not, and resigns or not.
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> 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
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]

Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3