[NCUC-DISCUSS] important information

Thu Aug 11 20:14:24 CEST 2016

I fully agree with the arguments made by Farzaneh.

However, I just wonder if the violation was made recently or is it an old
matter. As far as I remember, Peter has been serving the EC representing
the AP region for around 3 years and anyways is not eligible to contest for
the next elections on the EC seat.

Naveed -

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160811/92ec5792/attachment-0002.html>