[NCSG-FC] Questions and comments/current state of the FC OP

Fri Jul 27 17:30:13 EEST 2018

Response to Farzaneh on draft Operating Procedures for NCSG-FC

Thanks Farzaneh for coming up with the questions and comments.

Please find my responses highlighted.

These are the major points of discussion on FC draft operating procedures
(I might have missed something, so it's not an exhaustive list)

1.The charter states that FC should:

 "Fulfill any other accounting, auditing or other prescribed financial
requirements as set by the ICANN Board of Directors for organizations
within the ICANN structure."

There are different interpretations of the "audit" function of FC. . What
does the word "audit" mean in the charter? Should NCSG FC have an "audit"
function and what would that function entail?

[those who have commented on the document believed that NCSG  FC does not
have an audit function]

Well, in handling this comments you tried but seems to focus more on what
are your thoughts and projecting those who supported it than focusing on
real issues devoid of sentiment. The way you presented this item seems to
be the only comments received were from those who thinks along your line of
thought.

Other voices were not brought into your summary which is not good enough.
Based on the point you are making here, it will require review/amendment of
the NCSG Charter and if anyone chooses to argue from point of ignorance or
deliberately joining the say 'No' queue, we should be able to differentiate
that here from the meat of what that session tend to achieve without
personal sentiments.

At least you know I did not insert that in the charter. Therefore we need
to support processes that engender accountability, openness and
transparency.

For instance, one of the requirements from ICANN is for organizations like
NCSG must submit an annual financial statement and this cannot be done in
isolation and I am yet to see any report of such since our charter was
adopted in 2011.

2. The necessity of FC members to Attend ICANN meetings in person

Do FC members have to attend ICANN meetings to be able to carry out their
obligations? i.e. should a travel budget be allocated to them for this
purpose?

[Members who commented do not think that FC should have to attend ICANN
meetings in person, Remmy disagrees on the doc]

Note that there were supports also from both within the FC and community
and cannot be only me supporting or disagreeing with those who disagree
with the session. These I think should also be reflected and taken into
account and possibly we can vote on that as FC. I have provided instances
too to help their understanding. I may not be in FC for life, but we must
provide enabling environment for the FC members to deliver on their
mandates.

The chairman has also presented FC needs especially the fact that from the
comments people are not looking at building networks to improve the fiscal
state of NCSG but merely being sentimental to how to empower FC to deliver
its assignments, which was why outreach by FC becomes imperative.

3. Should FC provide oversight management/monitoring of its constituencies
and propose a budget for its constituencies? [members who commented think
not and that it's outside of its remit]

In my response to this in the document and before now, I had buttressed
this point with Charter sessions supporting the insertion. And I think we
have to draw a line between what is contained in the charter and mere
comments. For now the charter should be upheld pending when such is amended.

4. Members raised: There should be accountability measures predicted in the
charter for the finance committee. What are our plans to address this issue?

>From my desk and am sure the chair will speak to this too, the current FC
plan is to shore-up the funds made available for NCSG to carry more
activities and we believe that mainstreaming ICANN.org is key to achieving
this so we don't work across purposes and following the money so to say and
extend this drive to outside world, hence the need to support FC and bring
about more members involvement in the activities of our Cs and FC precisely.

I also reminded us not to and stop hitherto the relegation of NCSG FC for
whatever reason, but rather create enabling environment for it to thrive
without undue distractions or undermining influence. The fact is that NCSG
has been in violation of its charter since the latest charter of 2011 as
far as some FC functions are concerned. This we intend to correct.

5. Allocation of funds. based on Remmy's suggestion of
40%NCUC-40%NPOC-20%FC was not received well by those who commented, so I
removed it and added the previous language I had suggested.

*Dear Farzaneh, it is inimical for you to take that position when it had
not been deliberated by FC as suggested, which is one of the items FC was
anticipated to deliberate on and fine a *way forward. By that removal, you
are taking decision without due process. I am sure there should be better
options or fine tuning of that session than replacing it.

For instance, do you have a means of covering bank charges when it occurs
from outside funds received by NCSG and your alignment in the formula as
shown above does not depict that actually FC proposed 20% is meant to be
NCSG-FC. I think it gives an ambiguity meaning there and needed to be
corrected as FC does not exist in isolation but NCSG-FC.

6. SVP is a complicated term, I removed it, members who commented agreed on
its removal.

Please what makes SPV - Special Purpose Vehicle,* not SVP* complicated
terms. It's a term used in financial sector as makeshift to bridge a gap,
which in this case exists because of difficulties in NCSG-FC living up to
the charter mandate to open a bank account or neutral bank plan. Please
tell us what makes it complicated? All we need is to agree to the terms of
its usage as earlier explained.

Its not true and enough that members agreed for it to be removed. What are
the alternative options they are proposing to make the process more
transparent and enshrine accountability acceptable to both Cs and NCSG?

The truth is like I noted earlier it's only FC that knows where it pitches
except if we are to remove that mandate on the charter. Hence there is need
to have the charter reviewed as soon as possible.

Is not enough to sound off a session, ask out from financial gurus on how
such could be handled and let us arrive at best practices that is good to
drive the process. This was one of the reason we wanted to get ICANN attend
proposed session to address some of these issues, but it did not get your
support.

Like I noted, most of the comments or questions you supposedly decided on
should be done by FC, not you as the penholder and that had been one key
reason why we need to meet on this after the comments period has expired to
decide on them as a team, not an individual.

Thanks
Remmy

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:29 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> These are the major points of discussion on FC draft operating procedures
> (I might have missed something, so it's not an exhaustive list)
>
> 1.The charter states that FC should:
>
>  "Fulfill any other accounting, auditing or other prescribed financial
> requirements as set by the ICANN Board of Directors for organizations
> within the ICANN structure."
>
> There are different interpretations of the "audit" function of FC. . What
> does the word "audit" mean in the charter? Should NCSG FC have an "audit"
> function and what would that function entail?
> [those who have commented on the document believed that NCSG  FC does not
> have an audit function]
>
> 2. The necessity of FC members to Attend ICANN meetings in person
> Do FC members have to attend ICANN meetings to be able to carry out their
> obligations? i.e. should a travel budget be allocated to them for this
> purpose?
> [Members who commented do not think that FC should have to attend ICANN
> meetings in person, Remmy disagrees on the doc]
>
> 3. Should FC provide oversight management/monitoring of its constituencies
> and propose a budget for its constituencies? [members who commented think
> not and that it's outside of its remit]
>
> 4. Members raised: There should be accountability measures predicted in
> the charter for the finance committee. What are our plans to address this
> issue?
>
> 5. Allocation of funds. based on Remmy's suggestion of
> 40%NCUC-40%NPOC-20%FC was not received well by those who commented, so I
> removed it and added the previous language I had suggested.
>
> 6. SVP is a complicated term, I removed it, members who commented agreed
> on its removal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-FC mailing list
> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>
-- 
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/20180727/0f1cd9ba/attachment-0001.html>