NCSG

[Emmanuel Vitus]

Bonjour Jean,

Your issues with Caleb and Juan should not implicate the entire Executive
Committee (EC). I am a member of the EC, and the fact that you claim you
will not mention names is just another excuse to tarnish everyone’s image,
including mine. So here is my response, addressed to you, and you alone.

Thank you for the work you have done. However, it is not in my nature to
respond to allegations of defamation or to attempt to destroy someone’s
"hard-earned reputation." As an African proverb says: "Do not wrestle with
a pig; you both get dirty, but the pig loves it."

One cannot tarnish someone’s reputation in a public space and expect it to
go unnoticed or without response. I will therefore address the points you
raised, as you made them public. As a member of the Executive Committee
(EC), it is necessary to set the record straight.

To begin with, my name is Emmanuel Vitus, and I am the NPOC Policy Chair, a
position for which you lost the election last year. Regarding the
appointments to the NCSG EC, you were nominated to the role after losing
your bid as Policy Chair. However, as a member of the EC, I was not aware
of your nomination to that role, which appeared to be a unilateral decision
between you and the Chair. During a meeting, I was informed that you were
now representing NPOC in the NCSG, replacing Tapani. This was not made
public to members nor did it follow any established procedure. I
immediately brought this to the EC’s attention, highlighting that this
process bypassed the established rules of the charter, as well as the
transparency and accountability we expect from our officers. I asked the
Chair to recall all the appointments that did not adhere to these rules,
which meant terminating your appointment and that of Caleb. Juan
acknowledged this oversight and apologized, demonstrating the kind of
leadership we value. Caleb, who was in the same position as you, did not
oppose this decision and sent an email to the mailing list in agreement.

According to Section 2.3 of the NPOC Charter, appointing representatives to
positions within the NCSG, GNSO, or ICANN is explicitly a collective
responsibility of the NPOC Executive Committee (EC). The Charter does not
grant any individual member, including the Chair, the authority to make
such decisions unilaterally. Furthermore, the principles of transparency
and accountability outlined in Section 4.3 emphasize the need for inclusive
consultation and decision-making within the EC. Decisions of this nature,
particularly involving appointments and dismissals, directly affect NPOC’s
governance and representation and must reflect the collective agreement of
the EC to maintain credibility and compliance with our governance structure.

This was the argument I presented to convince the EC to clarify the process
for electing our representatives to the NCSG and other ICANN groups and
working groups. Following my observations, the EC agreed to follow the
proper procedure: a public announcement, a call for candidates, a vote, and
the communication of results. This process was finalized with a vote during
our EC meeting on January 15, 2024. You can listen to the EC meeting
records for reference.

Regarding your frustration over these events, it’s important to note that
several recent members have demonstrated their competence and leadership
through significant contributions, such as Wale and Dr. Amesssinou (who
were announced yesterday as our representatives). These members, though
new, have distinguished themselves by their commitment and expertise, in
line with expectations. The other experienced members, Remmy and Tapani,
have served as representatives and will support the new members. This
reflects a healthy balance of new talent learning from seasoned leaders.

I must also remind you of past incidents. For example, during the IDN EPDP
closed workshop in Kuala Lumpur last year, despite the staff explaining
that this workshop was not open to the public, as members had been
appointed and working since 2021, you insisted on attending the workshop.
You even questioned the appointment of Manju as the liaison for the
Council, replacing Farrell, whose term as a Councilor had ended. Such
behavior demonstrates a lack of understanding of internal processes and
protocols, as well as leadership. You ended up standing outside the meeting
room for two days, pressuring staff to allow you in as an observer. This
was very embarrassing for me as an NCSG representative and undermined the
group you claimed to represent without an appointment or prior involvement
in the IDNs EPDP. This is just one example of how you behave when you want
something and do not get it, becoming vindictive and resentful.

You also mentioned the need for fresh blood, but it is worth pointing out
that you joined NPOC only two years ago. Within this short time, you became
Communications Chair in less than a year, which clearly reflects the
organization's openness to new members. However, in last year's election
for Policy Chair, you lost the race, not because the community opposed
fresh blood but due to your lack of experience in policy matters. You had
never actively participated in a working group, been a pen holder, or
contributed to any policy development. Additionally, as is tradition, no
one seconded your nomination, yet you were still allowed to compete. And
now, you are the one advocating for fresh blood? This contradiction
undermines your argument and further highlights the community's fair
judgment based on experience and contributions.

Finally, regarding your criticisms of communication processes, it is
important to emphasize that our priority remains the core mission of NPOC.
Subscribing to unnecessary services, for example, dilutes our efforts and
creates confusion rather than improving our IT infrastructure. I raised
this in the EC and expressed opposition to the idea of having a vault
hosted by your organization. The Communications role only requires access
to essential tools such as the server, website, and social media accounts.
We, as EC members, collectively understand the importance of protecting our
assets but also recognize the need to avoid reinventing the wheel with
overly complex systems that create challenges for future leaders.

Since NPOC’s inception, no one has ever refused to hand over
responsibilities after losing an election. Fundamentally, NPOC is not
managing critical infrastructure such as nuclear launch codes or ICANN root
servers. While your ideas are laudable, they are excessive and unnecessary.
We cannot afford to implement cumbersome processes or subscribe to numerous
services that will force us to rely on you for basic operations. The
pretense of building a “robust” structure seems exaggerated and impractical.

You spoke about chasing people for handovers. While I have not added to
that thread, I am sharing the URL to the email thread between you, the new
Communications Chair, and the NPOC Chair so everyone can form their own
judgment. In the future, address issues instead of attacking individuals,
and avoid tarnishing people’s reputations out of frustration. You joined
NPOC and, within a year, were given the opportunity to serve at the highest
level. For some of us, it took years of learning, observing, and losing
elections before earning the opportunity to serve. If you wish to lead,
learn to serve others and trust the process. Stop calling on NCSG to
“babysit” its constituencies. Start by reading the bylaws and charters.
Address issues, not individuals, and avoid airing grievances publicly.

Since we speak the same language, allow me to conclude with this proverb:
"Le calme est le maître de toutes les tempêtes. Celui qui veut gouverner
doit d’abord apprendre à servir."

This will be my last email on this matter, and I hope you read the last
sentence very carefully. I am not an anglophone, and English is not my
first language, but I hope you understand the essence of my message.

Best regards,


*Emmanuel VitusNPOC Policy Chair*


Le mar. 21 janv. 2025 à 06:50, Jean F. Quéralt <
000016bf26350d73-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> a écrit :

> Hi Rafik,
>
> To clarify, I am not seeking restitution or remedy for the situation. NPOC
> EC has chosen and that's all good by me.
> My contention is how all of this has happened as the acceptance of the
> seat had commitment and work consequences + how things have been handled.
> Following the procedures is not an issue to me, being treated like a pawn
> that I take issue with.
>
> It is of my opinion this is to be addressed by NPOC and hopefully this
> doesn't occur again with other members.
> I agree that ICANN has no beef in these internal matters (nor the
> Ombudsman).
>
> Best,
> Jean F. Queralt
> Founder & CEO - The IO Foundation <https://TheIOFoundation.org>
> Book a meeting <https://TIOF.Click/BookJFQ> (30 minutes)
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 14:08, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> With regard to the mandate, this is an NPOC internal matter. NCSG charter
>> covers NCSG matters such as membership, committees etc  but each
>> constituency has its own charter/bylaw and operating procedures for
>> appointing representatives to NCSG committees. We can only offer support to
>> help parties to resolve this and find an acceptable agreement.
>>
>> ICANN org has nothing to do with this and I don't see why it would get
>> involved. What I might propose or suggest as possible options for
>> consideration by the impacted parties:
>> 1- if all parties agree, I can as NCSG chair volunteer to be a mediator
>> and do a fact seeking mission first to clarify the situation.
>> 2- or a group of 3 people including NCSG chair, 1 member from NCUC and
>> another from NPOC that all parties can trust to do the mediation and fact
>> seeking
>> 3- or all parties can go to ICANN Ombudsman instead and leverage them as
>> more experienced mediator and someone external from our community.
>> Ombudsman is supposedly independent from ICANN org.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le mar. 21 janv. 2025 à 00:52, Johan Helsingius <
>> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> a écrit :
>>
>>> On 20/01/2025 16:35, Arsène Tungali wrote:
>>> > I am wondering who has the responsibility to make sure NPOC leadership
>>> > is held to account? The NCSG? ICANN org? I know the answer is
>>> somewhere
>>> > in the charter, or maybe not.
>>>
>>> Basically the members (who elect the EC and Chair). ICANN org definitely
>>> doesn't have any (formal) way to do anything, and NCSG has traditionally
>>> tried to leave the two constituencies to do their own thing.
>>>
>>>         Julf
>>>
>>
> *DISCLAIMER*
> *The content of this message, which may contain personal or sensitive
> data, is confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please inform
> the sender by replying to the email and then permanently delete the
> message, including any attachments. It is forbidden to copy, forward or in
> any way reveal the content of this message to anyone. The integrity and
> security of this email cannot be guaranteed over the Internet and,
> therefore, the sender will not be held liable for any damage caused by the
> message.*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250121/2cb84e3c/attachment.htm>