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

Tue Aug 1 10:18:47 CEST 2017

Dear James,

It was sad that in April the communication between you and me was broken down by your cognition that my case with the former NCUC EC (2016-2017) was over and you thought that I should drop it and go forward. I would certainly do so.

You must see the following email that the Ombudsman had sent on 6th, July, which stated that he had completed his further investigation and closed the case.
(@Herb, thanks so much for all of your energy and efforts for this case over the last one year.)

James, I would like to respond to your comment on 18th, April, 2017(see your email below).
This is my last comment to you.
I assume you may have been wrong from the start.

A.
During ICANN 59, I talked to ICANN staff who is responsible for the Security Framework Drafting Team (SFDT).
ICANN staff confirmed with me that SDFT is not engaged on the level of RySG or RrSG.
SFDT is open to Registries, Registrars and GAC members.
RySG is not equated with registries, likewise RrSG is not equated with registrars.

Saying this, your claim that “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” could not stand.
Your complaint was based on an untenable assumption.

It seems that you may have confusingly mixed the concepts of RySG and Registries.
In August 2015, I did participate in SFDT representing my organization—a registry, however, I did not participated as part of the RySG. So I did not violate the NCUC Bylaws. Now please be noted this.

The NCUC Bylaws does not include an article or a term that one individual could not participate in ICANN work representing his/her organization.

The current effective NCUC Bylaws only mandated that “individuals are eligible only if they are not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group”.

I myself--as an individual NCUC member--was not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group.
I participated in SFDT representing my organization-a registry.
SFDT is neither an ICANN Supporting Organization nor GNSO Stakeholder Group.
SFDT is NOT even a formal GNSO PDP Working Group. It is not binding to any parties.
There is nothing in the NCUC Bylaws that state that I could not participate in it representing my organization.

B.
Another point that I would like to let you know.
Herb had confirmed with me that Fabien did acknowledge that he neglected my email to him in early September, 2015, in which emails I asked Fabien if SFDT was only open to registries, registrars and GAC members, whether I could participate representing NCUC, if not, then I may quit SDFT.

Fabien neglected my email, and I did not get his reply.
If I got his reply, things may be quite different.
My name was still left on the web page of SFDT.
It was just because of that you took that as the evidence that I had been participating SFDT representing a registry.

Anyway, I assumed that it is much difficult for me to change your cognition that I participated in SFDT representing a part of RySG.
Nothing could change your cognition on this matter. It is a pity.

C.
It is still my view that the former NCUC EC(2016-2017) had not the power to request me to resign. Their request to ask me to resign was illegitimate.

Recall that, in her email on 14th October, 2016, when discussing comments on revision of the NCUC Bylaws, Farzi did mention that “Questions: 1. Should the bylaws include the process of removal of ncuc officers such as EC members and how?”(http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-October/019237.html)

It was at that time that NCUC EC just started to discuss “[s]hould the [NCUC] bylaws include the process of removal of ncuc officers such as EC members and how?”

This is evidence that there is gap in the NCUC Bylaws in terms of removing an EC member.
This is evidence that there is flaw in the NCUC Bylaws.

The EC’s action to ask me to resign was rushed and was not justified in accordance with NCUC Charter.
By no means should I accept such an illegitimate EC request.
By no means could I accept the EC’s statement on their rushed action.
By no means could I accept their apology for their rushed and illegitimate action.

Best Regards
Zuan Zhang/Peter Green

Herb Waye <herb.waye at icann.org>

收件人:
ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
抄送:
ombudsman (ombudsman at icann.org);
Peter Green (seekcommunications at hotmail.com);
Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com)

 Dear NCUC Members,

Following up on emails posted to this list I have made further inquiries regarding the NCUC EC decision to request Zuan Zhang’s (Peter Green) resignation from the EC, in hopes to clarify the situation.

I have made further inquiries with ICANN and determined that Zuan participated in the initial three meetings of the Security Framework Drafting Team but ceased participation when the question of a conflict of interest was raised. He immediately attempted to determine with ICANN whether he could participate on the drafting team and be a member of the NCUC EC at the same time. I can confirm that Zuan contacted ICANN twice and requested a clarification whether as a member of the NCUC EC he could participate on the drafting team. The email requests to ICANN went unanswered and as a result Zuan fully ceased participation at that point rather than place his status with the NCUC EC in jeopardy. Unfortunately, Zuan’s name remained on the participation roster of volunteers for the working group despite his non-participation.

I hope this clears up any remaining confusion.

I sincerely, once again, wish to thank everyone for their cooperation in this investigation and would like to advise, with agreement from Zuan, that I now consider this complaint closed.

Respectfully yours,

Herb Waye

ICANN Ombudsman

________________________________
发件人: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> 代表 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
发送时间: 2017年4月18日 23:26
收件人: Herb Waye; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
抄送: ombudsman
主题: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from Zuan Zhang (Peter Green) Complaint to Ombudsman

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,
Drafting Team - Spec 11 Security Framework - Confluence<https://community.icann.org/display/S1SF/Drafting+Team#DraftingTeam-CompositionandAttendance>
community.icann.org
Quick Search. Dashboard ...

“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] 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.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170801/c5d8a049/attachment-0002.html>