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

Thu Jul 19 20:41:17 EEST 2018

Generally looks good to me but the OP stuff can be discussed beforehand as
well and we just report on the progress.

when I come up with the agenda of NCSG Open session I will ask PC and EC if
we can allocate 15 mins to FC to discuss.

Best
Farzaneh

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks Remmy for your input, I will do necessary amendments and revert
> back. I would also appreciate comments from other members so that I can see
> how to integrate everyone's input or comment. Anyways I meant "harmonizing
> the NCSG FC OP to synergies with the NCSG Charter" will adjust the language
> accordingly, looking forward to your responses, thanks.
>
> Renata/Joan/Farzaneh any comments or suggestions, this needs to be
> submitted tomorrow???
>
> Thato Mfikwe.
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Thato for coming up with this.
>>
>> On the Facilitating Faculty/people needed: FC members and not member -
>> considering that the members represent two constituencies (NPOC and NCUC)
>>
>> On agenda Part 1:
>> No. 2. kindly correct 'and Finance Committee" spelling.
>>
>> 3. I expect more time on the Q & A, may be 10mins
>>
>> 4. I did not understand what is to be merged as we cannot merge the
>> Charter and OP, but harmonise areas of difference/interests as may be have
>> been highlighted/suggested from ongoing comments. In addition, possibly
>> seek volunteers to help out in that and then reduce the time from 15mins to
>> 10mins and add the difference in timing to Q & A as I expect more
>> interactions.
>>
>> on Part 2:
>> Can we change  No. 8  to "Leveraging ICANN Finance for NCSG work - By
>> Staff - 7 minutes
>>
>> and 9 to "Remarks by GNSO Rep" - 5 minutes
>>
>> 10. I will suggest merger of Q & A in No. 7 with this - 8 mins.
>>
>> *NB:* Can we accommodate in the benefits, need to also participate in
>> the ICANN AGM open session, knowing fully well the importance of business
>> of AGM including presentation of an annual report containing information
>> for stakeholders about the organisation's performance and strategy, so as
>> to afford FC to follow strategically/familiarise the process and
>> strategically plug-in. FC members will equally participate in the ExCom of
>> their respective Cs to close ranks with their EC.
>>
>> This is a good plan Mr. Chairman and I hope my input is helpful.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> ____
>> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE,
>> Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
>> (DigitalSENSE Business News
>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS
>> <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet
>> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>)
>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
>> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
>> <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria%E2%80%8E>
>>
>> *South-South Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>*
>> (Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State). JOIN us!!
>>
>> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS
>> <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>)
>>
>> *NPOC FC Rep @ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)*
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is
>> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not
>> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this
>> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other
>> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:19 PM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As you might be aware the FC is currently thinking of coordinating
>>> sessions during ICANN 63, preferably onsite but should travel support be
>>> not available, then this will be done online with members who will be
>>> attending onsite. Below is the proposed details of planned meetings, you
>>> experience will be very helpful in ensuring we have a solid and
>>> comprehensive meeting request for the NCSG FC. According to email responses
>>> above, it seems like the FC has the go ahead to prepare and proceed with
>>> this submission, if anyone thinks otherwise, they are free to comment:
>>>
>>> *MEETING 1*
>>> NCSG Finance Committee (90 min)
>>>
>>> *Objective*: To introduce NCSG FC to the NCSG community and discuss the
>>> Finance Committee Operational Procedures (OP) and the NCSG Charter in order
>>> to find synergy between the two documents.
>>> *People needed*: ICANN Finance, GNSO Finance rep, FC member or members,
>>> NCSG EC and members
>>>
>>> *Agenda*: Face to face meeting with NCSG members (90 minutes)
>>>
>>> *Part 1*: Establishment of the NCSG FC - 45 minutes
>>> 1. introduction, background of the FC and committee responsibilities as
>>> listed in the NCSG Charter - 10 min
>>> 2. Overview of the NCSG Charter and Fiance Committee OP (oversight,
>>> participation, accountability and auditing function issues) - 15 min
>>> 3. Q and A - 5 min
>>> 4. Discussions on how to merge the 2 documents/contention areas - 15 min
>>>
>>> *Part 2*: NCSG Finances and fundraising for NCSG - 45 min
>>> 5. Discussion on NCSG priorities, opportunities and needs - 10 min
>>> 6. Background on ICANN budgets, 2018 - 2019 ABRs and fundraising options
>>> (ICANN finance, contributions and outreach to external funders) - 10 min
>>> 7. Inputs and comments - 5 min
>>> 8. Input from ICANN finance staff - 5 min
>>> 9. Input from GNSO finance rep - 5 min
>>> 10. Q and A - 5 min
>>> 11. Closing remarks - 5 min
>>>
>>> *MEETING 2 (Optional depending on availability of a slot):*
>>> NCSG FC outreach during constituency day or NCSG outreach sessions (FC
>>> to sit on a panel or present online)
>>>
>>> *Objective:  *To call on volunteers to help the FC in execution of its
>>> responsibilities (information sharing and creating awareness)
>>>
>>> *People needed:* New comers and NCSG members
>>>
>>> *Presentation areas*
>>> 1. Introduction to the FC and current activities - 5 min
>>> 2. FC plans and how to participate - 3 min
>>> 3. Q and A - 5 min
>>>
>>> *Other benefits for attending onsite outside the 2 meetings(FYI):*
>>> - Following up on other discussions, meetings and deliberations relating
>>> to ICANN funds and budgets
>>> - Creating enabling networks and contacts with potential funders and
>>> ICANN staff
>>>
>>> Please kindly assist in making this making request solid and also
>>> provide your comments so that we can submit to Maryam on Friday, thanks.
>>>
>>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/20180719/b10e86c6/attachment-0001.html>