[NCUC-DISCUSS] important information

Thu Aug 11 19:52:48 CEST 2016

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: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<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.