[NCSG-PC] one on one with Goran

[Ayden Férdeline]

No one should feel discouraged from participating on our mailing list. However, no one should be above scrutiny either, even if they have served in multiple NCSG leadership positions.

My dispute with Farzaneh Badii has never been personal. It has been one of integrity.

I have been trying to spare the list the details, and I've tried to work within our various complaints mechanisms to resolve this matter since lodging a complaint in July.

Until today, the most I have said on our lists is that we must hold ourselves - as civil society at ICANN - accountable and be introspective at times.

Unfortunately, since I tried to work within the system, I have been subject to retaliatory action from Farzaneh.

I was left with no alternative but to defend my good reputation after Farzaneh sent an email to this mailing list stating: "I think you would like to carry out personal attacks against me since you have been abusive and accusatory when engaging with me in NCSG chat channels and now on the mailing list. In the past, I thought you should be given chances to correct your path. Been a long time. Nothing has changed. You even got a nudge by members that your practices are not well received among the community. Seems like nothing works."

The "nudge", by the way, was a series of threats that I received off-list from various NCSG veterans, in what was clearly an orchestrated campaign.

There have been no personal attacks. What there have been are repeated violations of the NCSG bylaws, NCUC operating procedures, and ICANN standards of acceptable behaviour by Farzaneh. This is unacceptable. What I have learned is that we do not have a complaints process that is effective or enforced, nor do we have an ethics policy. We need both.

I am so disappointed that my attempts to hold us to a higher standard have been misconstrued as a "personal attack" or a "gossip show". Nothing could be further from the truth, or further from what I have sought to achieve. I think it is absolutely critical that civil society acts with integrity at ICANN. How else can we expect to be taken seriously when we try to hold others to account?

I have been repeatedly bullied by the civil society community at ICANN over the past three years, particularly by the veterans here, and there have been increasing attempts to ostrasize me ever since I cottened on to Farzaneh. I think it is very transparent and it really saddens me, because I wish the same energy could be directed towards our policy work.

I am happy to take this discussion offline to the Ombudsman, but I am not withdrawing my comments as they are factual and will withstand scrutiny.

Regards,

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 21:08, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I really don’t get this. Discussing substantive issues, expressing support, disagreement, additional thoughts for consideration, etc… are among what this mailing list is for. When these take an ad-hominem turn, I really don’t understand the point. A few months ago, other ad-hominem criticisms were made against the NCSG Chair. Similar to this situation, I don’t see how this is constructive at all.
>
> Ayden, you apparently have grievances with Farzaneh that (at least) I am not aware of. I imagine that this is the case with other members. You’ve apparently already sought more formal proceedings to address your grievance(s). This is within your rights, and these procedures exist in order to address such situations. So why are you attempting to shame another member in public, then?
>
> You’ve made some serious allegations against Farzaneh on a publicly archived mailing list. Can you explain your purpose in doing so, because I can’t think of one? Even if you disagree with how Farzaneh has or hasn’t followed procedure, raising the essence of the disagreement is one thing, but what does the rest of it all achieve?
>
> I seriously hope that emails like the one below don’t discourage our members from engaging on-list. It really shouldn’t. Farzaneh started a thread that garnered interest from other members, and elicited responses. I hope folks will not be discouraged from continuing to engage, for any reason.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 2, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>
>> I am happy to go through the archives and to dig up messages which demonstrate what has been the past practice.
>>
>> And of course I know you have served as NCSG chair, which is why I do not think your conduct here was unintentional. You knew what you were doing.
>>
>> You can label my scrutiny of you as being a personal attack if you wish. I think you are self-interested and transparently so.
>>
>> As you are aware, I believe you have repeatedly violated the NCSG's bylaws and the NCUC's operating procedures, and I have attempted to have the NCUC's leadership take appropriate action privately. Unfortunately, they have not done so.
>>
>> I have attached a recent decision letter to this email. It is disappointing, as in my mind it demonstrates that the NCUC's Executive Committee does not consider one its functions to be containing the misconduct of NCUC members like yourself.
>>
>> I think we (as civil society at ICANN) are not very accountable. That is unfortunate. I think you are a prime problem here, as you act contrary to the NCSG bylaws, NCUC operating procedures, and ICANN's standards of acceptable behaviour - and you rarely coordinate with us, instead seeking to advance your own interests at the expense of civil society as a whole.
>>
>> I criticise ICANN org regularly, but we do not have our house in order by any means. How you've gamed the system, and written the rules through your work on ICANN's accountability reforms to immunise yourself from being held accountable, is so disappointing.
>>
>> You may report me to the Ombudsman if you wish. My claims will withstand scrutiny.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 18:58, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you being innocently wrong Ayden or are you not saying the truth? Because there is no such a longstanding tradition. And I guess I would have known it because I was the Chair before Stephanie, the mailing list is there you can check for yourself. for One on Ones, we always went to the general mailing list. For CEO and Board meetings we finalized the questions with PC. PC members don't have time, there was only one day to send the questions I thought would be good to get a broader perspective.
>>>
>>> I think you would like to carry out personal attacks against me since you have been abusive and accusatory when engaging with me in NCSG chat channels and now on the mailing list. In the past, I thought you should be given chances to correct your path. Been a long time. Nothing has changed. You even got a nudge by members that your practices are not well received among the community. Seems like nothing works.
>>>
>>> I don't think NCSG deserves the rant and accusatory show you want to display. I also do not want to engage with you since it is not going to go anywhere and my time is more precious. However, if you continue accusing me, I will definitely take action through the appropriate channels ( such as a complaint to the NCSG chair and taking the case to Ombuds if necessary). Someone has to put an end to this gossip show, if necessary, I will do it.
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forgive me for asking this.
>>>>
>>>> But why, Farzaneh, did you take this conversation from the Policy Committee list to the main NCSG-Discuss list?
>>>>
>>>> It is not that the main discussion list should not be consulted, of course there is nothing wrong with that.
>>>>
>>>> However the long standing practice is that it is the NCSG Chair who would take such a conversation to the list after formulating a first draft of questions with the Policy Committee.
>>>>
>>>> And that is exactly what Stephanie was doing.
>>>>
>>>> So I am not sure why you would try to undermine Stephanie like this. I consider it very disrespectful.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 21:28, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot for putting this together. I cc'd the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first question is an actual comment. So he has invited some NCSG members to dinner? Or is this the usual dinner invitation? And who would you like to take with you to this dinner if you could take other members?
>>>>>
>>>>> The second question, you are asking for a research librarian for the community. This should have been in form of additional budget request and I don't think anything can be done about it now. It's simply too late and the CEO doesn't have a pot of money to give to noncommercials to have a research librarian.  This again is not a question, it's an ask. I don't think there would be any problem with if we suggest this as an ABR and promote it and get support from other community groups (though I am dubious about its effectiveness, since if we don't have many people active, why would they want to use a research libraria?)
>>>>>
>>>>> The third question is again another ask for a budget, and this time its reallocation.I see that in this request, you mention that CSG was disinterested in meeting with "us". And then there was a concession? Would be glad to know more about this if you could share the details. You are asking for another day to be added to Cancun for NCSG to meet internally. I don't have an issue with that but I am wondering if the CEO will even entertain your request if you don't say the objectives of this one day meeting with NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to ask the CEO, and we have been asking this before, why some important call for comments from the community are published on blogs and not on public comment page? Can that be fixed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to discuss his blog about ICANN's carbon foot print?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you also please raise the point that we are unclear about the nature of evolving ICANN's MSM process? Brian Cute (if I am not mistaken) was appointed by the Board or the CEO, and this whole initiative was created in a top-down manner I believe. How do they want to actually evolve the MSM when the process of evolving it is a top down process?
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:48 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have my one on 14 with Goran tomorrow.  I am late in sending these questions out for approcal, they were due yesterday.  I have discussed with Bruna, that is it.  Let me know if you have any reactions, I am sending very shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> <Ayden Response - NCUC Complaint .pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191002/6ce54114/attachment.htm>