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

[Thato Mfikwe]

Hi all,

Apologies for that, I actually thought that I copied the FC mailing list,
but anyway just to provide clarity on emerging concerns:

- FC participation in ICANN meetings can be onsite or online, whichever
will be possible, we will work through that

- If the charter permits the FC to hold meetings without the approval of
the FC, then fine there is no need to discuss this further

- I am aware what Maryam is asking from the FC regarding the planned
meeting that is why I needed input from FC members

- Outreach is not for donors only but can be used to create awareness and
explain/introduce the work of the FC to new comers and not discuss issues
but we can highlight current and planned activities. The FC needs to be
visible in NCSG activities, not only PC activities or initiatives. Or maybe
I was supposed to refer to it as inreach?

- Nothing in my last email talks about fundraising but I mentioned that the
FC needs to keep upto date with discussions around budgets, monies kept by
ICANN, for instance, currently there is nobody reporting on new gtld on
Auction Proceeds or participating or reporting on the respective CCWG

- Meeting with ICANN finance online or anywhere will be very helpful and
ICANN budgets are not clear on SO and AC allocations, so a meeting with
ICANN staff is paramount

- Again, we are in no competition, if anyone wants to undertake a task,
they are free to propose this without any reservation and the FC will
collectively make a final decision

- If we do not reach consensus, the Charter provides guide on how to make
decisions, going public is an individual attempt to defy provisions in the
Charter, if everytime we do not all agree on something and we decide to go
public as a result, what image will this give to the NCSG membership "That
the FC is in disagreement with itself?", is that what we want for the FC?

- I think we need to discuss your ground rules, I do not understand what
you mean about so much resistance because I commented on your decision to
share the OP working document which was a basis for creating the actual
draft OP. The difference is huge and you know very well that the OP was
under development by Remmy and sharing a document that is not complete is
sending wrong signals about the FC, looking as if we are disorganised. No
matter how you can explain yourself, it is wrong, anyone who wants to
follow the FC mailing list is free to do so.

We need to accept while still early that not every idea we have will be
supported by the next person or two, failure to accept this truth will
result in disgrantled members of the FC but as leaders we should not oppose
different views, especially by the majority or maybe some leadership styles
are outdated or not relevant within ICANN communities?

My proposal:
Farzaneh, can you become the penholder for the draft OPafter receiving
public comments before our submission to the EC?

Why: Logistics involved with sharing 2 documents can be cumbersome because
working with the clean document was an agreement by the FC, this draft was
supposed to be sent on Friday but was released on Sunday for comment after
Remmy made edits, after youyrrecommendation which I also supported.
According to my opinion, the working document of the FC will make the
comment process very complex and bear in mind that the FC will attempt to
resolve all comments on the final Draft OP I shared before submission to
the EC for approval, thanks.





On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:46 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20180718/ca270a42/attachment-0001.html>