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

[Farell Folly]

Dear All,

I followed this discussion since last year when it started and I hope no
one has nothing  personnal against Peter. To me it is very clear there is
no evidence  that Peter did something "legally" wrong. In a certain point
of view, let's say according  to some principles, he could be incoherent,
however; principles are what they are : not everybody has same principles
and what seems obvious for one group of folks may not be so for others.
If we awant to  put new rules/principles on the NCUC table, let's  just
follow procedures  and update our bylaws. It would prevent us from many
philosophical discussions. Therefore,  let's save time and love forward.

Best Regards
@__f_f__
about.me/farell
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 22 avr. 2017 12:56, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> a écrit :

> 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>
> *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
> *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>
> <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> 代表 Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <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
> *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> 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>
> 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] *On
> Behalf Of *Herb Waye
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:47 PM
> *To:* ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> *Cc:* ombudsman <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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170422/3b33b7bb/attachment-0002.html>