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

[Raoul Plommer]

Peter,

If I may ask, what are you trying to achieve with this case now? Did you
still want to be part of the NCUC?

-Raoul

On 22 April 2017 at 19:28, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi Peter.  I see your point here, and would be happy to correct the
> record, although I do think it is a trivial one, i.e. whether the booth was
> a CONAC booth, or a CNNIC booth.  My point was that you were missing our
> meetings and working with colleagues, and you had the decency to leave
> those colleagues with whom you were busy, come up to me as I rushed between
> meetings and apologize for the fact that you had to work (presumably on
> your day job, although you did not say so). As I indicated below, I did not
> interrogate you at the time, and I am not going to do it now.  My apologies
> for making the mistake, I shall happily take your word for it, it was not
> the booth of your immediate employer and I do not know what work you were
> doing.  I observed you there on other occasions and leapt to conclusions,
> based also on your own remarks to me.
>
>
> I don't think this is a material misrepresentation of the underlying fact
> that while travelling as a funded member of our executive, you were obliged
> to do work for your employer/with your colleagues that apparently
> interfered with your responsibilities to NCUC.  I am not sure that this
> public airing of the situation is doing anything to rectify the situation,
> and I know so little about the matter, since I am not a member of the
> executive committee, and did not participate in the discussions with the
> Ombudsman, that I am going to withdraw the comment publicly, apologize to
> you for any error, and stop this discussion of the matter right here.  I
> can understand that you might not care to discuss all the other issues I
> raised below, and that is quite fine with me.  Your membership in NCUC is a
> matter that is to be determined by the executive committee, not this list.
> I remain convinced that the matter of conflict of interest and lack of
> transparency in employment situations is something we as a constituency
> need to address.
>
>
> With my apologies for any harm that this mistake may have done to your
> reputation, and looking forward to productive work on our actual
> non-commercial issues either together or separately in different
> constituencies, I remain,
>
> Your truly
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-04-22 08:45, Peter Green wrote:
>
> 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>
> <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/di
>> splay/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-standar
>> ds-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/piper
>> mail/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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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/20170423/c9e0b17a/attachment-0002.html>