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

Thu Jul 19 22:26:14 EEST 2018

Hi Farzaneh,

The OP would make a good discussion with members as currently, it seems
like it won't be approved before ICANN 63 unless all contentions are
resolved, which I doubt. So looking at contention areas would be
advantageous and of course everything that will be done in ICANN 63 will be
discussed in detail by the FC before then and this exercise will help with
invitation of members to support the activities of the FC as recommended.

One last confirmation, if I may, according to your experience, do you think
this FC plan for ICANN 63 can help steer the FC forward because we cannot
ignore sections of the OP where there is strong contentions like the bank
account, justification of constituency equitable funding, participation,
financial reporting and auditing amongst other challenges that may affect
the work of the FC?

In your way forward, please also elaborate more on how the FC can
facilitate a more impactful and progressive meeting based on the proposed
ICANN 63 agenda and plan.

Thato Mfikwe.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:41 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/f82b6544/attachment-0001.html>