[NCUC-DISCUSS] important information

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Just wanted to thank Farzi, Milton and Bill for highlighting the historical context, and explaining the process used that has led up to where we currently are. This is, IMHO, very important. I’m confident that this issue is not an easy or pleasant one for the EC to handle, but it is the committee’s obligation towards the NCUC to do this, and for that it has my gratitude.

I also have a personal thought. My understanding of the reason why this letter was ultimately publicly shared on-list is, as Farzi explained, that the EC did not receive a response from Peter on this, and that he most likely approached other members off-list on the topic. This led to a transparency issue being raised, which prompted the EC to ensure that all members, to the extent possible, are equally informed on what is going on. At no point did Farzi or any other EC member claim that the reason was to put undue pressure on Peter, or submit him to a court of public opinion. On the contrary. Milton pointed out how this is actually counterproductive, and personally, I see it the same way he does.

I respectfully disagree with those who are asking Peter to provide an on-list explanation at this point. I wholly appreciate the need for our elected officers being accountable to our membership, and am in favour of them being questioned by members when/if there are questions or concerns with how they do things. However, at this point, I would suggest that Peter (as a regional member of the NCUC EC representing AP) still only needs to respond to the EC on this. Whether he agrees with their assessment, or decides to challenge it is really up to him. It would then be a matter of the EC (including Peter) to report back to the membership on how things have progressed.

Right now, I believe we know all we need to on this topic. I respectfully submit that we need to be a little patient, and let whatever process the constituency’s leadership decide on to take its course.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 12:29 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2016, at 20:14, Rao Naveed Bin Rais <naveedbinrais at gmail.com <mailto:naveedbinrais at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Despite my trepidation about discussing previously private comms, under the circumstances I guess should respond to this.  
> 
> It came to my attention on 1 September 2015, when I was NCUC chair, that Peter was participating in the Specification 11 drafting team as a registry representative.  I sent him a private note saying um, it doesn’t seem entirely consistent with the bylaws for a member of our Executive Committee to be participating and advocating on behalf of another stakeholder group, especially one with whom we are at times on different sides of issues.   I suggested I thought he should decide which role he wanted to play, and left it at that.    He thanked me for not making a public issue out of it, and said that of course he wanted to stay in NCUC and on the Executive Committee, so he would resign from being a registry rep on the drafting team.  I was therefore rather surprised to be told by someone else (don’t recall when, but in the past couple months) that he was still serving on the drafting team representing his employer.  I don’t know what to make of the discrepancy between what I was told almost a year ago and what has been done since.  Either way, the answer to the question of whether this concern came out of the blue without warning is, no. 
> 
> I didn’t know what the current Executive Committee planned to do until it was announced here a couple days ago.  At this point, I would suggest we recognize that our reps are doing their best to deal with a difficult situation and act in the constituency’s interest.  I know they also are working hard on revising our bylaws, and perhaps this experience will be helpful in that regard.  We will need to tighten things up on role conflicts and other procedural matters in light of the coming SOAC accountability process.  
> 
> Finally, I emphatically agree with those who’ve noted that none of this is personal.  I was happy to have Peter as a EC colleague in my time and look forward to our future interactions etc.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160812/6a1a04bb/attachment-0002.html>