[NCSG-FC] FW: FC meeting at ICANN63 Barcelona

[farzaneh badii]

I meant that I cannot attend the meeting in person.

I don't know what Thato means by " *Looking forward to your thoughts,
Maryam wants to submit a request on our behalf by Friday and of course it
will be subject to the entire NCSG EC approval." * Maryam is asking whether
you want to 1. have a Finance Committee Session, during AGM 2. If so, what
is the agenda. Why should this be submitted to NCSG EC for approval? Does
the charter say NCSG EC has to approve FC meetings' agenda?


As to the agenda, is this the agenda of Finance Committee F2F meeting or is
this the plan of FC activities in ICANN 63? Because Maryam really needs the
agenda of the Finance Committee face to face meeting in order to book it,
90 minute or 60 minutes? what are you gonna discuss, who are you gonna
invite, etc

As other points, why does FC have to present in NCSG outreach meetings?
NCSG outreach is about telling newcomers/fellows/attendees what we do
policy-wise and what our mission is and encourage them to join. what the FC
does is least of their worries, we can just tell them Finance Committee is
in charge of finances at NCSG! They are not really donors to be able to get
money from them.

If you mean presenting the work during NCSG open session which will happen
in AGMs, ok. but perhaps a shorter period (10-15 mins) in NCSG open meeting
for presentation would suffice since FC wants to ask for a slot to meet
f2f. (as I said I don't think FC needs to meet face to face if the FC
members are not going to be already there, in the past some FC members were
councilors and had funding to go and/or chairs of the constituencies so
they could attend in person. no one got funding to go to ICANN meetings for
FC activities ever.)


I totally disagree with what Thato is saying below:

'- Attending an ICANN meeting (any meeting to be clear), will help the FC
> keep up with discussions around ICANN Budgets, Reserve funds and other
> funds kept by ICANN, these will ease the communication with ICANN finance
> and other potential external funders for fundraising purposes and ensuring
> C's and the SG receive fair and equivalent."


If you need meetings with ICANN staff they will be more than happy to
arrange it with you online through adobe, they have done it before with the
previous FC.  If FC wants to look at what ICANN allocates regarding funds
it can check their annual budget and other documents.


Attending policy and outreach meeting to discuss finance matters won't be
possible, they are short meetings about policy and outreach.

Fundraising at ICANN meetings? FC does not have a fund raising plan. It is
one of its first responsibilities to come up with one. And in any
fundraising plan that is out there for NCSG, I will tell you that ICANN
meetings are not the hotspot to raise funds. There are many issues
associated with fundraising activities that have to be discussed before we
say we will do fundraising at ICANN meetings.


As to the below:

It is  not helpful for members to take FC issues to the public mailing list
> although anyone can see mail threads of the FC, can we please avoid
> opposing each other because we all have different views and as leaders we
> need to *avoid falling on to the trap of insubordination* because it will
> always pose problems to the proper functioning of the FC, it seems like
> this also needs to be repeated, as it seems like the FC is in competition
> with itself.
>

Thato, I want consensus to happen. I want us to come to a conclusion. But I
don't think operating procedure draft was done in a manner that could
achieve that. First of all, Remmy's second draft as a penholder had kept
most of  "the original language" he had put in there, despite having had
been flagged by me, commented on and argued about.He did not resolve all
the comments. Penholder has to respond and resolve all the comments but if
not possible, then the penholder has to keep the comments of the flagged
parts and not just resolve and keep the original language. The flagged
parts and the comments should have been shared with the members for two
reasons: I do not have to repeat myself and then forget some part 2. for
people to see that we had disagreements and had conversations about them
and see what their opinion is. There is nothing to hide about that.

I had to go through the document and again say why I did not agree with
some parts. And am I mistaken that you decided to share the document
without asking us on a Sunday deciding yourself to give them 3 weeks to
review while we really didn't have agreement on that either?

So we need to do the process right. These are lessons to be learned: 1. The
second draft should not resolve or delete comments that have not had been
agreed on.

I see no problem with sharing drafts of the penholder with the members from
the very beginning even. The finance committee does not have many members.
We need others points of views and knowledge.

Traps of insubordination? Are you saying I disobeyed FC  orders?  If you
did not mean that, then I don't know what you mean. If you mean I should
not have done something FC told me not to do, I am sorry but we work with
consensus. When there is no consensus I try to find consensus, if I cannot
find consensus then I surely record my objection publicly. Especially with
a 3 people committee. You can do the same.


Thato said


> The charter has provisions on how decision can be made within the FC if
> members cannot reach consensus but we do not want to go to that route
> because we want an environment conducive to collaboration and harmony, but
> if needs it be, we will have to visit the charter to obtain direction and
> guide incase of contention of ideas or perspectives, no one person or
> individual FC member has authority to dictate or intentionally circumvent
> activities or decisions of the FC but it is the entire FC itself that
> collectively makes decisions. Furthermore, as the Chair of the FC, I do not
> take sides but I support that which I think is best for the FC irrespective
> of who proposes an idea.
> Farzaneh, with all due respect, I think it was wrong to share the document
> the way you did, knowing very well that the FC did not agree or discuss the
> release of the working draft, irrespective of your reasons, we need to work
> together. Our focus is to build a functional FC for NCSG as opposed to
> preempting the FC goals and plans, lets give it a fair opportunity to
> participate in NCSG activities , thanks.



I explained my reasons why I shared it. There are so many things that are
wrong with this process drafting the procedure. I have not in one single
committee at NCSG seen so much resistance to share documents that are in
draft with the members. I frankly don't think FC can make a decision on not
sharing documents and not being open.

We need to make some ground rules for how to come up with documents, this
FC does not really follow the usual practice.

1. Penholder drafts, FC comments, modifies
2. Penholder resolves comments, accept modifications and when does not
accept the modification, does not resolve them in the second draft, lets
the conversation to be there for members. penholder can bring the issues to
the FC lists to discuss and see if it can be resolved
3. Penholder does not keep the original language that has been objected to
without any remarks.
4. Members should be able to send communications to the FC mailing list any
time they want, the moderator cannot stop that unless for justified reasons
and the document should be shared with them from the beginning.
5. Members should be given ample time at least 3 to 4 weeks to comment on
the operating procedures












Farzaneh


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:17 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Farzaneh
> Please can you explain what you mean by "Because I  cannot."
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:00 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> can everyone already go to this meeting (do you have funding?)?
>> Because I  cannot.
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:58 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mr Chairman,
>>> Outline well noted and is ok by me. It will offer FC opportunity to deal
>>> with community perspectives as they arise and create more better
>>> understanding of FC going forward.
>>> Regards
>>> Remmy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 7:34 pm Thato Mfikwe, <thatomfikwe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to check with everyone if the following would suffice for
>>>> ICANN 63 please note I am not ignoring Farzaneh's comment:
>>>>
>>>> - Participation in NCSG outreach activities or inreach efforts: the
>>>> role of FC would be to present and introduce the FC and outlines some of
>>>> the current and planned FC activities. This will require that the FC sits
>>>> on a panel of a relevant workshop or meeting (Information sharing and
>>>> creating awareness)
>>>>
>>>> - Development of an agenda centered around resolving the FC OP and its
>>>> synergies with the NCSG Charter, the role if FC is to lead this meeting
>>>> with the NCSG membership in attendance as this will also enable members to
>>>> understand the role of the FC and how to support.This meeting could also
>>>> look at other things but the OP and the Charter remain critical to
>>>> effective operation of the FC when 2019 commences. *This was recorded
>>>> in minutes of our last meeting.*
>>>>
>>>> - Attending an ICANN meeting (any meeting to be clear), will help the
>>>> FC keep up with discussions around ICANN Budgets, Reserve funds and other
>>>> funds kept by ICANN, these will ease the communication with ICANN finance
>>>> and other potential external funders for fundraising purposes and ensuring
>>>> C's and the SG receive fair and equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> *Looking forward to your thoughts, Maryam wants to submit a request on
>>>> our behalf by Friday and of course it will be subject to the entire NCSG EC
>>>> approval. *
>>>>
>>>> It is  not helpful for members to take FC issues to the public mailing
>>>> list although anyone can see mail threads of the FC, can we please avoid
>>>> opposing each other because we all have different views and as leaders we
>>>> need to *avoid falling on to the trap of insubordination* because it
>>>> will always pose problems to the proper functioning of the FC, it seems
>>>> like this also needs to be repeated, as it seems like the FC is in
>>>> competition with itself.
>>>>
>>>> The charter has provisions on how decision can be made within the FC if
>>>> members cannot reach consensus but we do not want to go to that route
>>>> because we want an environment conducive to collaboration and harmony, but
>>>> if needs it be, we will have to visit the charter to obtain direction and
>>>> guide incase of contention of ideas or perspectives, no one person or
>>>> individual FC member has authority to dictate or intentionally circumvent
>>>> activities or decisions of the FC but it is the entire FC itself that
>>>> collectively makes decisions. Furthermore, as the Chair of the FC, I do not
>>>> take sides but I support that which I think is best for the FC irrespective
>>>> of who proposes an idea.
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh, with all due respect, I think it was wrong to share the
>>>> document the way you did, knowing very well that the FC did not agree or
>>>> discuss the release of the working draft, irrespective of your reasons, we
>>>> need to work together. Our focus is to build a functional FC for NCSG as
>>>> opposed to preempting the FC goals and plans, lets give it a fair
>>>> opportunity to participate in NCSG activities , thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:25 PM, farzaneh badii <
>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thato
>>>>>
>>>>> If FC members wont be going to the meeting already, there is no reason
>>>>> to have an f2f finance meeting. Only if you can already go
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:55 AM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Maryam,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me first discuss this with the FC and get back to you, what is
>>>>>> the timeframe for this submission? I had a stand alone meeting in mind but
>>>>>> let me check with members how viable this would be, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <
>>>>>> maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Thato, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the discussions on the mailing list, please could you
>>>>>>> confirm that you want a stand alone FC face to face meeting scheduled in
>>>>>>> the ICANN63 Barcelona meeting. If so, how long would you want the meeting
>>>>>>> for, so I can plan to add it to the NCSG meeting requests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
> Remmy Nweke, Esq lead strategist/group executive editor, DigitalSENSE
> Africa Media Ltd, publishers of: [DigitalSENSE Business News | ITRealms |
> NaijaAgroNet] Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction,
> Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria 234-8023122558, 8051000475, 08033592762, 08172004283
> Remmyn at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20180717/6ac0f926/attachment-0001.html>