[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Apr 18 18:57:50 CEST 2017
It seems pretty clear to me. I would add that Peter was on duty at the
CONAC booth while attending Marakech. This is nothing personal, it is
just important that we keep things clear and stick to the rules.
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-04-18 12:08, Remmy Nweke wrote:
> James thanks for further efforts.
> Like you said this issue should come to a close.
> With the aforesaid evidence there is nothing more to add.
> Regards
> Remmy
>
> On 18 Apr 2017 16:26, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>
> In the interests of transparency I need to out myself as one of
> the initial complainants, Peter was clearly operating within ICANN
> as a representative of CONAC representing a registry and not as
> stated
>
> “My organization CONAC is a member of RySG and two colleagues of
> mine are serving as representatives of CONAC in RySG. I was not
> listed as a representative of CONAC in RySG at that time. The only
> fact is I am staff of CONAC”
>
> This can be verified by visiting
> https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Drafting+Team#DraftingTeam-CompositionandAttendance
> <https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Drafting+Team#DraftingTeam-CompositionandAttendance>
> where one will find,
>
> “Zuan Zhang - China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)”
>
> listed under registries. Additionally this team was closed to all
> but contracted parties and the GAC as confirmed to me by Fabien
> from ICANN staff.
>
> On 01/09/2015, 17:07, "Fabien Betremieux"
> <fabien.betremieux at icann.org <mailto:fabien.betremieux at icann.org>>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello James,
>
> >
>
> >Members of the Framework Drafting Team are either representatives of
>
> >Registry Operator, Registrars or Governments (GAC/PSWG). We don¹t
> have
>
> >a specific observer status for other members of the community at
> this
>
> >point of our developments (which started only recently).
>
> >
>
> >However, all developments of the Drafting Team are public. You will
>
> >find all available information on this workspace:
>
> >https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Spec+11+Security+Framework+Hom
> <https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Spec+11+Security+Framework+Hom>
>
> >e
>
> >
>
> >Let me know if you need any additional information.
>
> >
>
> >Best Regards
>
> So as a complainant to the former EC on this matter it is clear
> that one cannot represent one stakeholder group on the EC while
> actively participating as part of the RySG on closed ICANN policy
> processes. This is the clear difference vs Rafik for example. Also
> I will note Farzi serves as the formal NCUC liaison to the PIR
> advisory council, a position that comes with NCUC membership so I
> am not clear how an NCUC position could be considered in conflict
> with the NCUC?
>
> The former EC took the correct action here and has acted in a
> professional and integral manner, pointing out clearly the
> conflict of interest and asking Peter to resign which he did. I
> hope that everyone can agree that this situation almost 1 year on
> should be left to close now with Peter confirming that going
> forward he will be representing the RySG.
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
> *From:*Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>] *On Behalf Of *Herb Waye
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:47 PM
> *To:* ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> *Cc:* ombudsman <ombudsman at icann.org <mailto:ombudsman at icann.org>>
> *Subject:* [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green)
> Complaint to Ombudsman
>
> Please find below a statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green).
> Attached is the initial request for his resignation and his
> response. This statement is in response to the statement posted by
> the former NCUC EC on April 10, 2017.
>
> Herb Waye
>
> ICANN Ombudsman
>
> https://www.icann.org/ombudsman <https://www.icann.org/ombudsman>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman>
>
> Twitter: @IcannOmbudsman
>
> ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/expected-standards-15sep16-en.pdf
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/expected-standards-15sep16-en.pdf>
>
> Community Anti-Harassment Policy
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/community-anti-harassment-policy-2017-03-24-en
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/community-anti-harassment-policy-2017-03-24-en>
>
> Confidentiality
>
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
> confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence
> and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the
> confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to
> further the resolution of a complaint
>
> Comments from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) on Former EC's Statement
>
> Dear NCUCers,
>
> From August, 2016 to April, 2017, it’s been 8 months since I took
> the case of the former NCUC EC’s decision to ask me to resign from
> office to the ICANN Ombudsman.
>
> Time to speak.
>
> I assume it is better to put all of the things on the table and
> would like to have the whole picture for our NCUC members to see
> the core of the case, the nature of the case.
>
> On 1^st , August, 2016, I received a letter (please see the
> attached Email 1) from the former NCUC EC asking me to resign. In
> the letter, the EC came to the conclusions that I was not eligible
> to be a NCUC member, I am a member of the Registries Stakeholder
> Group (RySG) and I actively participated in the work of RySG.
> Therefore, the EC decided to remove me from the office.
>
> I replied to the former EC acknowledging my receipt of the letter.
> Then I was silent for a few days and went back to hometown for
> family affairs. When I returned to work, there were discussions
> going on in the NCUC mailing list. I found that there were
> divergent views on my eligibility of being a NCUC member among
> many of our NCUC veterans, therefore I decided to take this case
> to the ICANN Ombudsman and I made it very clear that before the
> Ombudsman’s decision, I would not take any action, hence long time
> silence (please see the attached Email 2).
>
> However, I could not imagine that the case had been going on for
> so long. There were several rounds of discussions among me, the
> Ombudsman and the former EC until Rafik published the former EC’s
> Statement on Monday.
>
> After rounds of discussions, the former EC did not agree with some
> views of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the former EC released this
> Statement to clarify their action.
>
> Below are my comments on the former EC’s Statement:
>
> 1. Issue of My Eligibility of Being a NCUC Member.
>
> I could not understand how the former EC had ever come to the
> conclusion that I was not eligible to be an NCUC member. I joined
> in NCSG/NCUC in March, 2013 as an individual member with
> registered domain names (one of them was expired, currently
> holding an IDN domain name钻.我爱你, xn--h84a.xn--6qq986b3xl)for
> non-commercial self-use in accordance with NCSG Charter and NCUC
> Bylaws. I could not see how I am not eligible to be an individual
> member of NCUC. However, the former EC claimed that I am a member
> of RySG. For your information, RySG only consists of
> organizational members—registries. My organization CONAC is a
> member of RySG and two colleagues of mine are serving as
> representatives of CONAC in RySG. I was not listed as a
> representative of CONAC in RySG at that time. The only fact is I
> am staff of CONAC. Does the fact that I am staff of CONAC and
> CONAC is a member of RySG mean that I am a member of RySG? That’s
> clearly not the case in accordance with the RySG Charter. If it is
> not that case, I could not see why the former EC came to such a
> conclusion according to the NCUC Bylaws, if not with a
> preconceived notion that staff of a registry could be not
> individual members of NCUC, however, the NCUC Bylaws does not say so.
>
> On the other hand, in the Statement the former EC also mentioned
> that “[the former EC’s] request for Peter to resign from the EC
> was not caused by any misconduct or poor performance on his part”,
> “[the former EC’s] main concern has always been the integrity of
> the NCUC”, “[t]his is designed to prevent commercial or contracted
> parties from attempting to control or influence [NCUC]
> Constituency”. I do agree with maintaining the integrity of NCUC.
> If the former EC’s decision to remove me was not due to my
> misconduct rather due to my relationship with CONAC and CONAC’s
> relationship with RySG, there are two other facts that deserve
> attention. Rafik now works for NTT Communications, a business
> company in Japan and Farzaneh is serving as a member on the
> Advisory Council of .org registry—PIR—a registry. According to the
> circumstances of my case, in order to preserve the integrity of
> NCUC and prevent commercial or contracted parties from controlling
> NCUC, does it mean that the NCUC EC should consider removing them
> from office due to their relationship either with a business
> company or with a registry, both of which are not committed to
> non-commercial interests.
>
> 2. Authority Issue
>
> It should be noted that the CURRENT EFFECTIVE NCUC Bylaws does not
> encompass terms or articles regarding removing an incumbent EC
> member, as it was mentioned in the former EC’s Statement that
> “there was no precedent in NCUC’s history for the EC to draw
> upon”. Therefore, the former EC’s action to remove me from office
> was not on basis of the NCUC Bylaws. There is a gap in the NCUC
> Bylaws.
>
> It is just owing to my case that NCUC found there is gap hence
> necessity to include removing an incumbent EC member in the
> revised NCUC Bylaws, see email on 14^th , October, 2016 at
> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-October/019237.html[lists.ncuc.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermail_ncuc-2Ddiscuss_2016-2DOctober_019237.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kIm7BGIl3qR3NKOfU-SwstwQr15K9OhllVGUWu0k8uc&m=kfPRSa6Hq7XVjsBTD1dYGMxfK7l5VIP7CJMsnltDDZw&s=9ClgqJhulZz6yY_JHgaWzghAeK0GuQZ9nwJwIfi4OKY&e=>,
> however, in his comment on the former EC’s Statement, Professor
> Milton Mueller claimed that “[t]he approval of the new bylaws
> validates the actions of the EC by making it unambiguous that the
> NCUC has the right to remove from office people who are not
> eligible.” Would you mind differentiating the relationship between
> cause and effect? Which is first? My case was before the former
> EC’s intention to include terms of removing an incumbent EC member
> in the new NCUC Bylaws. Professor Milton is talking about the
> effect of the approval of the revised Bylaws. It seems Professor
> is talking about the other side of the coin. Unfortunately, two
> sides of a coin never meet each other. I hope any effective
> discussion should be on the same side of the coin.
>
> 3. Transparency Issue.
>
> The former EC sent me a letter asking me to resign and claimed
> that it was an EC decision. Were there any EC meetings or records?
> I was removed only due to email exchanges between members of the
> former EC, without documentation. Weren’t there transparency
> issues? In this sense, it seemed that I was removed in a
> non-transparent way with non-legitimate EC authority (at the time
> the NCUC bylaws was not revised, even if the NCUC bylaws was
> revised, it is not effective now).
>
> With my comments, I aim to have the whole picture on the table for
> the NCUC members. I would not say the case is moot or not. All of
> us could comment.
>
> More importantly, I see that my case has helped eliminate
> ambiguities and gaps of the NCUC Bylaws, though it severely
> affected my work in NCSG/NCUC.
>
> Community integrity is important. Legitimacy and transparency is
> also important.
>
> Thank you all!
>
> Best Regards
>
> Zuan Zhang (Peter Green)
>
> (Note:
>
> 1. I would like to reiterate that I have no intention to
> participate in NCSG/NCUC because of the effect on me and I will
> unsubscribe from the NCSG/NCUC mailing list on 1^st , May 2017.
>
> 2. Due to the effect of the case on me, after 8 months, in late
> March, I asked to join RySG and was listed as an alternate
> representative (without voting rights) of CONAC in RySG to start
> my ICANN journey. As I am still in this case, I have reported my
> action to the Ombudsman for record.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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/20170418/e58e9d13/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list