<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Stepahnie,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your comments, please find my responses below. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Thato Mfikwe.<br></div><div><br></div><div>
<p><span>Dear Finance Committee Co-chairs:</span></p>
<p><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>1. The Finance committee has only 1 Chairperson and it has never agreed to having 2 co-chairs.</b></span><br></span></p><p><span><br></span></p><p><span>It has come to my attention that three ABRs were sent in to the
process without my knowledge, and using my signature since I am
responsible for the NCSG ABRs.
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests</a><br></span></p><p><span></span></p>
<p><b><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">2. I do not understand when you say your siganture was used because that would be fraudulent, so please elaborate what you mean because the ABRs were sent under the NCSG FC name not your name.</span><br></span></b></p><p><span></span></p><p><span><br></span></p><p><span>The Finance Committee is not a separate constituency, and at
the moment it does not have the authority to act independently in this
manner. Even if it did, such ABRs should have been
discussed on the FC list. These had to be shared and discussed with
the NCSG EC at a minimum, not sent in covertly. <br></span></p><p><span></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b><span>3. The ABR process has been difficult to coordinate even after the FC developed a tem[plate it was not accepted and I was not aware that there is a standard pprocedure for submitting ABR (please share). I acknowlege that it was my mistake to submit without engaging the FC, which is one of the reasons why we were supposed to have a meeting last Friday to discuss all the mentioned ABRs, secondly, the ABR process was short and there was not sufficient time to discuss and submit on time but nonetheless, the FC discussed the need to attend ICANN meetings and participate in outreach efforts for NCSG. Currently there is no clear guideline on how ABRs should be submitted, unless I am missing something. On the issue of engagement with the EC, what other decisions need to be taken by the EC and what decisions does the FC or PC decide on? If no clarity is provided, then these issues will keep emerging from time to time.<br></span></b></span></p><p><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>On the opposite, the decision to open a bank acount was not preceeded by FC engagement or collaboration, what makes this instance different.</b></span><br></span></p>
<p><span><br></span></p><p><span>Please explain what happened here.... I know I have been
terribly busy, what with the EPDP, the RDS II review, the budget and
various other comments. However, I don't think I have
forgotten anything with respect to the ABRs, and I am pretty sure I did
not know about these requests.
</span></p>
<p>
<span>The one for CIVICRM is totally counterproductive....the amounts
are wrong, and since we now have this funding in the core budget in the
amount of 20K, we do not need to ask for it in an
ABR.</span></p><p><b><span></span></b></p><p><b><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">4. I was not aware that the CIVI CRM is part of ICANN core budget, so you may remove this ABR if that is the case. Anyway, amount were derived from the SLA and related documents, maybe there could have been an oversight.</span><br></span></b></p><p><span><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Without discussing in detail the merit of
these requests, I would like you to please withdraw them and ask them to
be taken off the website by COB Monday. You cannot
send things in in my name without consultation, because I take my
responsibilities seriously. Furthermore, and now I am speaking to the
merits of the requests, if seems to me they contradict our overall
budget comments supporting restraint. The tone suggests
that the Finance Committee does not trust leadership to manage the
money that is entrusted to the NCSG, and that the Finance Committee
needs to be enabled to step up and manage it. This reflects very badly
on our stakeholder group, and is not a position I
support, and not just because I am the current Chair....I do not see
any evidence of financial mismanagement over the many years that NCUC
has handled the only money we receive officially. Recent events in
NPOC, I know very little about, but the money that
caused the friction had nothing to do with the PIR funding, as far as I
can ascertain. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">5. Could you please kindly share how budget comments are contradicted by submitted ABRs by the FC? As mentioned no ABR was sent in your name. The FC is responsible for approving and authosing expenditure, everything done should be guided by the charter not trust on an individual. The FC has never said that it does not trust leadership, where is that coming from? Also please elaborate what yuou mean w</span></span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">hen saying the FC needs to be enabled? Is it currently disabled, if so how? Also be informed that the FC accounts for all monies received, irrespective of source, so inclusion is key in finance related decisions and actions</span><span><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p>
<p><span>I am deeply sympathetic to the need for regional outreach and
development, this is what is behind the security and human rights
outreach request, but we should have discussed these
additional requests to coordinate, and to get the facts straight.</span></p><b>
</b><p><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>6. I agree, we have been attempting to discuss fundraising issues without any progress in the last 12 months or so, and these discussions are also planned to take place with community members durng ICANN64. The charter also clearly states that the FC must develop and eploy a fundraising plan.<br></b></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b><span>7. Lastly, most of the things you outlined here were supposed to be discussed in the meeeting that never took place in order to ensure that we have a structured way of working because currently it seems like the FC has no clear guideline on how it should operate.</span></b></span></p><p><span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>8. Is there any decision that the FC can make independently or not? For instance, FC action plans,do they need approval from the EC, if so why is the NCSG treasure not seating in NCSG EC meetings because this is one of the reasons why the FC will always be seen as opposing decisions or acting in contrary because transparency within the EC leaves a lot to be desired in regard to the FC.</b></span><br></span></p><p><span><b><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">9. I am still yet to remember any decision that was taken by the FC that was supported by the EC. I proposed the FC have a meeting next week, when you are available to put most these issues to rest. You may cancelthe CIVI CRM ABR only until the FC as agreed to removal of all submitted ABRs.<br></span></b></span></p><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>My proposal, the current chair of NCSG needs to help bridge the communiacation and engagement gap that exists within the EC and the FC not further widen the gap by challenging or putting unncessary pressure. Also note that the FC does not have opportunity to travel and participate in ICANN meetings besides squatting for ICANN fellowships which are never guaranteed, thanks.</b></span><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:18 PM Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><span>Dear Finance Committee Co-chairs:</span></p>
<p><span>It has come to my attention that three ABRs were sent in to the process without my knowledge, and using my signature since I am responsible for the NCSG ABRs.
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests</a></span></p>
<p><span>The Finance Committee is not a separate constituency, and at the moment it does not have the authority to act independently in this manner. Even if it did, such ABRs should have been
discussed on the FC list. These had to be shared and discussed with the NCSG EC at a minimum, not sent in covertly.
</span></p>
<p><span>Please explain what happened here.... I know I have been terribly busy, what with the EPDP, the RDS II review, the budget and various other comments. However, I don't think I have
forgotten anything with respect to the ABRs, and I am pretty sure I did not know about these requests.
</span></p>
<p><br>
<span>The one for CIVICRM is totally counterproductive....the amounts are wrong, and since we now have this funding in the core budget in the amount of 20K, we do not need to ask for it in an
ABR. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Without discussing in detail the merit of these requests, I would like you to please withdraw them and ask them to be taken off the website by COB Monday. You cannot
send things in in my name without consultation, because I take my responsibilities seriously. Furthermore, and now I am speaking to the merits of the requests, if seems to me they contradict our overall budget comments supporting restraint. The tone suggests
that the Finance Committee does not trust leadership to manage the money that is entrusted to the NCSG, and that the Finance Committee needs to be enabled to step up and manage it. This reflects very badly on our stakeholder group, and is not a position I
support, and not just because I am the current Chair....I do not see any evidence of financial mismanagement over the many years that NCUC has handled the only money we receive officially. Recent events in NPOC, I know very little about, but the money that
caused the friction had nothing to do with the PIR funding, as far as I can ascertain.
</span></p>
<p><span>I am deeply sympathetic to the need for regional outreach and development, this is what is behind the security and human rights outreach request, but we should have discussed these
additional requests to coordinate, and to get the facts straight.</span></p>
<p><span>Kind regards,
</span></p>
<p><span>Stephanie Perrin</span></p>
<span>NCSG Chair</span>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-FC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-FC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-FC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc</a><br>
</blockquote></div>