[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement on Transparency and Off-list Communication

[caleb olumuyiwa]

Hey Guys,
Both of you have made your point.

I wish to appeal for caution and diplomacy.

Thank you
Caleb



On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 00:36 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Renata,
>
> Please do not insinuate that I do not "put in the work" already. I focus
> my energy on our important policy work, and do not want to have to worry
> about the politics of keeping the EC in check. I have enough to do
> already. I just wish this EC would follow the operating procedures and not
> challenge members to try to remove them for not following said procedures.
> Your attitude alone is one of, "Try me." You’re calling on someone to waste
> their time and energy removing you from office. As I have repeatedly said,
> I do not want to remove anyone from office, I just want there to be better
> judgement displayed — transparency by default, and following the procedures
> which members have crafted. I don’t understand why this doesn’t just
> happen. Two reasons come to mind; either you aren’t familiar with the
> procedures, or are familiar and don’t care to follow them.
>
> Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ayden Well, as I have mentioned to you before, we have procedures for
> appealing EC decisions, for EC member and Chair removal. Should you wish to
> initiate them, put on the work. Otherwise, NCUC will move on as it has been
> doing: with all members together being part of the processes. Best, Renata
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Renata, > > My
> email would pass a fact check - I stand by my claims in it. Anyway, you and
> Michael have no shame, and perceive any legitimate criticism of your
> collective poor leadership and incredibly poor judgement as an attack on
> the NCUC. The only attack on the NCUC has come from yourselves. How you
> manipulate processes and misappropriate resources for your own self-benefit
> is the real attack on the NCUC. > > Ayden > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On 20 June 2018 1:07 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > >> >>
> >> Ayden >> >> Your email brings so many stories that are simply untrue. >>
> >> You have supported me, yes. But that doesn't mean everything I will do
> >> >> with Chair will be at your bidding. >> >> I have explained over and
> over again that the NCUC IGF Proposal went >> >> through the proper
> channels and that even with a time crunch the EC >> >> decided to send it.
> >> >> All the EC has also acknowledged time constraints to be an issue and
> >> >> expressed to be paying attention to that from now on. >> >> The rest
> what follows is just over-engineered to direct at me some of >> >> your
> best constructions of an alternate reality to disqualify the work >> >> of
> NCUC. >> >> 1. I have never advocated for a division between NCUC and NCSG.
> I >> >> will, always, advocate for a better NCUC and our Constituency
> identity >> >> is important. That won't change. >> >> 2. NCUC has a great
> relationship with NPOC and that won't change >> >> either. We have
> collaborated before and will continue to do so in >> >> occasions when this
> is important. The same with NCSG. >> >> 3. I find it interesting you
> questioning NCUC participation in WSIS >> >> (which also went through all
> the proper channels), when your first >> >> participation on an NCUC
> workshop at WSIS was one I proposed. So what >> >> changed now? Just
> because you are not the one to be the speaker I >> >> have, somehow "lost
> my values"? Same applies to NCUC Rightscon and >> >> IGF2018 proposals? >>
> >> 4. To indicate that any opinion I might have on the dot-amazon case >>
> >> means that I am using NCUC for personal gain is way over stretched. >>
> >> There is manifesto signed by a dozen of NCUC members, among other >> >>
> groups, just stating that more debates on new gTLDs is important, I >> >>
> have not signed in the position of NCUC Chair. NCUC does its policies >> >>
> via stakeholder group level via PC NCSG, where you participate in. >> >>
> Maybe you are assuming already the result of WT5 and the positions >> >>
> NCUC will take while the group is still doing its work? >> >> 5. I have
> stated first than you that PC NCSG archives are open and >> >> invited
> members to apply. If anything good came from your >> >> reputation-bashing
> of me, is that people caught an eye of the position >> >> open and now we
> have some candidates. Good. We (NCUC) seriously need >> >> better people.
> >> >> 6. The IGF MAG does not have a mentor for new MAG members process.
> You >> >> are way out of line and delusional here. Fortunately, all the
> archives >> >> are open there too so anyone can also see this is all part
> of your >> >> campaign to weaken NCUC. >> >> You have been unsuccessful.
> NCUC is stronger than ever and will >> >> always do its best for our
> members. >> >> Renata >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Ayden
> Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com wrote: >> >> >> > Renata, >> > >> > I’m
> really disappointed in what you have written in this thread and how you
> have handled this situation. I do not like how you try to divide us. I
> think it is unbecoming of your position and unbecoming of who you are. >> >
> >> > It is not difficult to decipher that much of the coded language in
> this thread is directed at me, though only on this occasion - there seems
> to be a long list of people who you cannot work with. But I would like to
> make something very clear: I am an NCUC member and have been for nearly
> three years now. You do not recognise this. You say that I am an NCSG
> member (which is true, because to be an NCUC member one must be a part of
> the NCSG), but this does not take away from the fact that I have proudly
> undertaken outreach for the NCUC and recruited new members to our
> constituency. >> > >> > However, I do recognise the synergies that the NCUC
> has with our colleagues in NPOC and think we are stronger together (we can
> never have enough allies), which is why I also work at the NCSG level. I
> have never taken a position contrary to the values that the NCUC advocates
> for. And I think this is the crux of the problem. >> > >> > I am not sure
> you know what our positions are, and this has created problems. You
> proposed a WSIS session earlier in the year under the NCUC moniker which
> put forward your personal position on .Amazon — a position on geographic
> names which was at odds with what the NCUC had historically advocated for.
> This was a position that the NCUC has developed based on an analysis of the
> evidence, not on emotion. Since then, you have sought to isolate the NCUC
> from the NCSG, trying to see the NCUC develop policy positions in a vacuum
> separately from the NCSG. While I understand we all have personal
> perspectives on issues, this behaviour is disappointing in a Chair, because
> you are either unable or unwilling to recognise this conflict of interest.
> You have sought to divide the NCSG just because you have a personal
> disagreement on one policy position. >> > >> > I think your comments in
> this thread about the Policy Committee are without merit. The archives for
> the Policy Committee are open and anyone can see how our positions are
> developed — based on facts, not emotion, and a careful analysis of the
> issues. We have hundreds of posts there every month — compare the
> transparency here with that of the NCUC Executive Committee which you lead,
> where you frequently take conversations off-list and little of substance is
> made public. >> > >> > As for the suggestion that no one is expressing
> interest in representing the NCUC on the NCSG Policy Committee, maybe you
> should do some internal reflection, Renata. You were complaining two months
> ago that no one signed up to your buddy-mentor program either. No one
> volunteered initially for the Finance Committee. You have struggled with
> other appointments. Perhaps your capacity development programs just do not
> work, or no one sees the value in stepping forward, given your propensity
> to speak about people who you disagree with in coded language, and to
> allocate resources primarily to yourself or the EC. >> > >> > You have also
> had difficulties on the IGF MAG, complaining of a hostile environment, and
> I understand you managed to alienate yourself from your mentor there.
> Perhaps the issue is not everyone else. There's no "hidden agenda to crush
> NCUC initiatives" and the suggestion itself is ridiculous. There is,
> however, a view that I hold that you do not encapsulate the values that the
> NCUC has historically advocated. >> > >> > I'm so disappointed, Renata. I
> nominated you for the EC back in 2016 and did so again last year. I thought
> you'd do a good job. I wish that I had known how you would try to divide
> the NCSG and put forward positions inconsistent with what the NCUC has
> stood for. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Ayden Férdeline >> > >> >
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> > >> > On 12 June 2018 6:24 PM, Renata
> Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > Farzaneh >> > > >> >
> > Nothing makes sadder as well. >> > > >> > > Trust is difficult to obtain
> when a group leader is subject to >> > > >> > > repeated accusations which
> are, themselves, carrying another agenda >> > > >> > > which has nothing to
> do with what they are about. >> > > >> > > I would also hope the reluctants
> change their mind and face the >> > > >> > > challenge to apply for PC
> NCSG, that they contact you or Rafik. >> > > >> > > I have given enough
> explanations already on how short we are on >> > > >> > > volunteers and
> how pressed for time some production on NCUC is done. >> > > >> > > But I
> suspect there's a hidden agenda to crush NCUC initiatives, >> > > >> > >
> whether on Rightscon, IGF or ABRs. >> > > >> > > Well, we will always try
> to share materials with our members with >> > > >> > > better deadlines but
> we won't stop with our own initiatives and >> > > >> > > Constituency
> identity. >> > > >> > > I do hope our umbrella organization supports us on
> having our own initiatives. >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > >> > > Renata >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:54 PM, farzaneh badii >> > > >> > >
> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com wrote: >> > > >> > > > Renata >> > > > >> > > >
> This actually saddens me. Previously, we rarely had NCSG v. NCUC problems.
> >> > > > >> > > > or when we had, we transparently resolved them. Those
> members who are >> > > > >> > > > criticizing the NCUC EC actions are in
> fact NCUC members, any members' call >> > > > >> > > > to hold you
> accountable fair or unfair should be responded to, just like >> > > > >> >
> > > other leaders did in the past. Members criticism should not be called
> >> > > > >> > > > "attack" "aggression" or "bullying". Because then how are
> we supposed to be >> > > > >> > > > accountable to the members if we frame
> their criticism as such? >> > > > >> > > > We had exactly the same
> transparency issue last year when I was NCUC chair, >> > > > >> > > > we
> were challenged by the then NCSG chair. we resolved it. Members just need
> >> > > > >> > > > a response and promise that it will get better. >> > > >
> >> > > > The accusations of "unsafe environment" and "bullying" are
> serious. You >> > > > >> > > > cannot just throw them out there without
> concrete and strong evidence, it is >> > > > >> > > > unfair on NCSG and
> NCSG PC. >> > > > >> > > > I have always asked you to put those who would
> like to be engaged in policy >> > > > >> > > > in touch with us. Rafik
> never ever gives up reaching out to people and >> > > > >> > > > informing
> members. I even joined the NCUC buddy mentor program to help >> > > > >> >
> > > people get engaged. yes NCSG PC carries out a bulk of the policymaking
> and >> > > > >> > > > has the authority to pass the public comments as NCSG
> comments. It is not so >> > > > >> > > > nice to see that the public
> comment you have written is not being accepted >> > > > >> > > > or being
> changed but this is the nature of writing public comments. So many >> > > >
> >> > > > people who are now NCSG/NCUC veterans had their public comments
> altered or >> > > > >> > > > not approved. [one example is happening now,
> we are commenting on what Ayden >> > > > >> > > > has drafted and not
> accepting everything he has written] But this is the >> > > > >> > > >
> nature of a consensus process. I am to be included in the ones who had
> their >> > > > >> > > > public comment amended or simply not approved! Is
> that being hostile? If >> > > > >> > > > not, what is? >> > > > >> > > >
> Members can always join policy development groups, bring issues to the >> >
> > > >> > > > attention of NCUC and NCSG and we are always open to
> suggestions. >> > > > >> > > > As I told you, if you would like to
> criticize my actions or if you think I >> > > > >> > > > am doing something
> wrong as the NCSG chair, please feel free to bring them >> > > > >> > > >
> up. I can make things better, and I can provide an explanation. However, I
> >> > > > >> > > > do not tolerate baseless accusations against NCSG PC,
> against NCUC members >> > > > >> > > > or against NCSG members. >> > > > >>
> > > > As to your policy committee candidate that you cannot find, welcome
> to the >> > > > >> > > > club, it is not easy to have active members who
> are willing to step up and >> > > > >> > > > spend time on this. But I have
> also talked to a couple of people about this >> > > > >> > > > position and
> they did not mention they were intimidated by PC. One actually >> > > > >>
> > > > was going to apply ... >> > > > >> > > > I will stand ready to
> respond to any question regarding NCSG. As long as the >> > > > >> > > >
> questions are based on the actions that have been taken and not just >> > >
> > >> > > > misinterpretation and accusations. >> > > > >> > > > Farzaneh >>
> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> raquino at gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Rafik
> >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm sorry, just as you are, that the PC NCSG
> selection is one of the >> > > > > >> > > > > aspects impacted by the
> exchanges of email recently done here. >> > > > > >> > > > > On my part,
> I've answered over and over again the emails and still >> > > > > >> > > >
> > they keep coming. >> > > > > >> > > > > So yes, it is perceived by the
> members as bullying and unsafe >> > > > > >> > > > > environment and they
> do reach out to me in private. >> > > > > >> > > > > They wouldn't reach
> out to PC NCSG Chair because they aren't even >> > > > > >> > > > >
> candidates there on the 1st, no matter how much I try to assure, just >> >
> > > > >> > > > > like you, that the archives are open and they can see how
> things go >> > > > > >> > > > > along. >> > > > > >> > > > > This is just
> the truth and I am opening this because we need to deal with >> > > > > >>
> > > > > it. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > >> > > > > Renata >> > >
> > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Rafik Dammak
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >
> > Hi Renata, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I just finished the Council
> extraordinary call and it is already 23:00 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > but I
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > felt the need to respond here as you are making
> dangerous statements. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I may understand that you
> feel attacked and questioned but anyone in a >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> leadership position can tell you that they have faced that in time and >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > has >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to deal with it. We all
> faced that at some time during our terms. is it >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> pleasant? of course not but as leaders, we got to respond calmly and >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > explain >> > > > > > >> > > > > > our reasons. we may be
> right or wrong but at the end, that doesn't >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> matter, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > but we owe responses to our members as
> part of accountability and being >> > > > > > >> > > > > > responsible. I
> have no position on the issue faced by the EC to be >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > shared on >> > > > > > >> > > > > > the list and only wish them good luck
> and I am pretty sure of theirs >> > > > > > >> > > > > > genuine >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > reasons. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You are bringing NCSG PC
> to this issue which is unfair and without any >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> valid >> > > > > > >> > > > > > reason. As I am the NCSG Policy Committee
> chair, I am trying to >> > > > > > >> > > > > > understand >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > what you mean by bullies there and take responsibility if there
> is any >> > > > > > >> > > > > > problem. If someone has an issue or
> complaint, he or she can report that >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > NCSG chair and/or to me when needed and they can be
> ensured that their >> > > > > > >> > > > > > inquiry will be taken into
> account and seriously investigated. I don't >> > > > > > >> > > > > > think
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > going through 3rd party is the right way to do
> so. Some discussion can >> > > > > > >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > tense but I don't recall anyone dismissed, attacked or pushed. people
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > can >> > > > > > >> > > > > > check the PC list
> as all our deliberations are there or check the >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> recordings >> > > > > > >> > > > > > of NCSG policy call as we discuss
> policy matters there. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > to be honest what you are
> saying is definitely an attack and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > unfortunately
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > trying to deflect an issue you have on another
> group. That is really >> > > > > > >> > > > > > inappropriate and not
> helpful. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Rafik >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 à 22:32, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> raquino at gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> écrit : >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes,
> the Chair opposed this statement. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I believe
> all the conversation on time constraints on volunteers and >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > NCUC production has been addressed, multiple times. >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I also believe it is very comfortable to hide behind
> accusations of >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > lack of transparency when one
> did not contribute to writing ABRs or >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > getting
> into an agreement about an NCUC IGF Proposal. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> NCSG is our umbrella organization and members who are more active >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > there just come here to intimidate and attack. >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > We have close to zero candidates to PC NCSG
> Committee because no one >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wants to work with
> bullies there. I spend half of my time replying to >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > members who feel that these attacks are out of line. >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I will not empower these attacks. >> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > Best, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Renata >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > > > >> > > > >
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >> > > > > >> > > > >
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> > > >> >
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> > > >> > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>
> > > >> > > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://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/20180620/31f3bdb6/attachment.html>