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

[farzaneh badii]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:38 AM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

How do you resport a financial statement when you have no money of your
own? Everything that we got was sent by ICANN
since 2011 until now
and
ICANN
reported on it. Please point me to the members comments that supports the
auditing position. I agree with Thato that we should clarify what the word
"audit" in the charter means.


> 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.
>
I saw Joan supported this on the FC mailing  list. Please point me to where
members supported the need for fc to attend meetings to carry out its
obligations. (Other than Fc members comments
and Wisdom adding to the Charter section
)

>
> 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.
>
> Charter should be interpreted. I said multiple times we need to invite the
drafters to help us with the interpretation.

>
> 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.
>

I objected to this from the beginning and thato in the end agreed with me.
As the penholder
Remmy, you
should have re worded it or put it up for discussion.



> 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.
>

Remmy, Stephanie agreed, Rafik agreed.
SVP has legal meanings, not suitable for this document. As the penholder
would you like to change it?

I will start not taking accusations of not telling the truth lightly or
being inimical etc and turn a blind eye on them from now on. There have
been accusations
that
Thato and you have been under personal attack
(as expressed on a mailing list)
. This has to be corrected. Just because I disagree with you does not mean
you are under personal attack.
You are leaders, take the criticzm and act accordingly.

If you want you can send these questions to the list.



> 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
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-FC mailing list
> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20180728/facbdff6/attachment-0001.html>