[NCUC-DISCUSS] 答复: 答复: 答复: Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

Sat Apr 22 15:20:46 CEST 2017

Dear James,

Thanks for your comment.

So you are assuming that "to leave this issue as closed and move on instead of tyring to reopen a closed case?

Am I trying to reopen a closed case?

Is this case closed?

To respond:

In last August, I took the case to the Ombudsman. After 8 months, several rounds of discussion among me, the Ombudsman and our former EC, the Ombudsman recently decided to take the discussion to the NCUC mailing list aiming to engage more people to look into what happened.

James, now you think the case is closed?

Before going forward, I would like to have the Ombudsman's view whether we should continue the discussion here.

It's still my view that last August I was removed by our former EC from the EC in a non-transparent and non-legitimate way.

I have doubt. So I took the case to the Ombudsman to seek resolution.

Dear Mr. @Herb Waye,

I am not sure if you are still on this list and take care of this.

I would like to have your view whether this case is closed and should not continue discussion here.

Thank you!

Best

Peter

________________________________
发件人: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
发送时间: 2017年4月22日 20:56
收件人: Peter Green; Stephanie Perrin
抄送: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
主题: RE: [NCUC-DISCUSS] 答复: 答复: Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

Peter,
As you have now stated your representing the RySG as an alternate member for CONAC (Or have applied to do so) I would think the honorable thing would be to leave this issue as closed and move on instead of trying to reopen a closed case.

From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Green
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Cc: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] 答复: 答复: Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for your reply.

In my last email, I was only asking for your reply to the point whether there was a CONAC booth in ICANN 55-Marrakech and you saw me on duty at the booth.

Let's just focus on this point.

In your reply, you are still mentioning that I worked at the CONAC booth in ICANN 55-Marrakech.

You did not answer my question "are you sure there was a CONAC booth in ICANN 55"?

To be clear, there was not a CONAC booth at all in ICANN 55-Marrakech.

When you added that "Peter was on duty at the CONAC booth while attending Marrakech", you are misleading people who watch this discussion here.

Your are incorrect.

Your adding is causing folks' further misunderstanding on me.

I would like to correct that and hope you could stop here on this simple point.

Let's speak based on true facts, not on wrong assumptions or memories.

When you did not have the right information, communication from your part would become misunderstanding.

Communication should be based on right information, regardless of whoever.

In my following emails, I will communicate directly with our NCUC members who commented on this case.

Thanks!

Best

Peter

________________________________
发件人: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
发送时间: 2017年4月22日 0:08
收件人: Peter Green
抄送: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
主题: Re: 答复: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

Hi Peter,

I do think part of the problem here is that perhaps we were not getting communication from you at the correct time.  Now you seem to be very motivated to communicate, which is great.

I made the remark about you working at the CONAC booth because I met you in the hall in the building where the meetings where held, and you came up to me and apologized for missing one of our meetings (either the NCSG one or the NCUC one, I cannot remember) because you were working with your colleagues and could not get away.  Then you returned to the CONAC booth.  Was I incorrect in assuming that your day job was interrupting your volunteer activities at NCUC?  If so, please tell me, I am happy to be corrected.

I did not interrogate you at the time on it, and I am not going to do it now.  The question is a simple one, when you attend ICANN meetings, are you working for CONAC?  Are you on salary?  On what basis are you participating at ICANN?  are you on a leave of absence, is this considered professional development for your work etc.?  This whole episode in my view reinforces a point I have been attempting to raise for years at ICANN:  we need more transparency about what our members are doing at ICANN.  Who do they purport to represent, who are they actually working for? No, this does not mean that consultants have to release their client lists, the commercial sector seem to manage this quite well and we need to do the same.

As an example, when I started at ICANN in the EWG, I was still working for the Canadian government.  I took personal leave for every day that I worked at ICANN meetings.  That soon added up to weeks of leave spent at ICANN meetings.  I had to file a fairly detailed conflict of interest statement, and I never represented the views of the government.  If you are on salary for an organization (a company, a government, etc) I think some kind of explanation as to how you are not representing that organization in your ICANN activities is required.  However, I understand that my views are at the extreme end of some of the views held by our constituents.

In the meantime, I think it is a great pity that this is really the first communication I have had from you in at least a year.  We were supposed to be working on the RDS, and I looked forward to helping you understand the EWG report more fully.  I remain happy to do that.  Let us get on with the work here, folks.

Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin

On 2017-04-21 09:34, Peter Green wrote:

(Dear Folks,

I did see there were several comments coming in regarding my Statement.

I would like to respond one by one, piece by piece.)

Dear Stephanie,

Thanks for your comment.

I do hope "it seems pretty clear to [you]".

Pertaining to what you have added, you saw me "on duty at the CONAC booth while attending Marrakech" (ICANN 55, held in March 2016 in Morocco)?

Is this clear to you?

Are you sure?

It was quite possible that I sat down with my computer at a booth (or at whatever booth)  during intervals of intensive sessions during an ICANN public meeting. I assume anybody may sit down at a booth during an ICANN public meeting, if he/she needs to have a rest.

But I have no idea how you came to that conclusion just based on your "visual impression"?

Are you sure there was a CONAC booth in ICANN 55-Marrakech?

What I can provide is let the evidence speak:

1.   Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 55 Meeting
The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors: Verisign, Inc., Nominet UK, NCC Group, PDR Solutions FZC, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), Public Interest Registry, CentralNic, Afilias plc, Radix FZC, Rightside, dotistanbul, fmai, .MA and Office National Des Aeroports.
 https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.i

2.  https://meetings.icann.org/en/sponsorship
Sponsorship Opportunities | ICANN Public Meetings<https://meetings.icann.org/en/sponsorship>
meetings.icann.org
ICANN Public Meetings are one of the largest international conferences of the online world with over 2000 participants from 150 countries around the globe.

FYI, to have a booth in an ICANN public meeting, organizations have to be sponsors.

So, Stephanie, are you sure there was a CONAC booth in ICANN 55 and you saw me on duty at the booth?

To make this fact clear, I woud like to have your reply on this point.

Thank you!

Best

Peter

________________________________
发件人: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> 代表 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
发送时间: 2017年4月19日 0:57
收件人: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
主题: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

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 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

>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.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
Twitter: @IcannOmbudsman

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:
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
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 1st, 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 14th, 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 1st, 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

_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170422/962ac465/attachment-0002.html>