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

[farzaneh badii]

I only took into account the comments made on the Google doc for now. You
can share the questions and see what others think. Fc members are appointed
to this positions.

I can't unfortunately work anymore on the document.The penholder should not
be so attached to the original language he provided. Despite being even
disagreed with by two fc members, this keeps happening.  I provided
alternatives for the loaded word of SPV (made a typo in previous email,
mistakes happen) it should be removed and I provided reasons and it was
supported.

Let's have a meeting. But if we are going to argue over the same things
that I have argued over multiple times provided reasonings and provided
alternative language and it was put up for public comment and again members
on Google doc agreed,  then I'm afraid even a meeting won't be fruitful.
Unless there are new solutions by other FC members. Also I am concerned
that other FC member refrain  from inviting those involved with drafting
ncsg charter to being their rational and opinions.

Dont forget that NCSG EC has to review the operating procedures. If
anything goes against the charter now or not clear, then EC might not
approve it.Please don't frame this as a threat as you did in previous
communications, I did try to help, and spent a lot of time on this so
doesn't mean I have not been cooperative or not wanting FC to succeed, it
doesn't matter who would be chair in the future, EC members will look at
this document critically.

Another note: if this OP gets approved with no substantive changes, its
enforcement in the future will see challenges if it is not in line with the
charter and unreasonable. I am trying to help. My efforts might be framed
as blo.cking progress. But I have had to experience with drafting multiple
ops and I have no skin in the game And want  things go smoothly. You can
either choose to look at alternatives and another lens, or just emphasize
your previous positions.





On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 9:56 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Farzaneh and happy Sunday to us all.
>
> Thanks again for your responses.
>
> In finance or financial report, and based on the Charter specification,
> financial reporting/statement does not preclude any particular income but
> inclusive. So, whether ICANN reported on it from point of expenditures,
> there is nothing to show that from the NCSG end or financial books that the
> funds or income were judiciously used according to ICANN books and that is
> why simple statement is required to state NCSG position among other
> inflows/income and expenditures.
>
> Audit does not mean two things in Finance or Accounting but simple
> examination of the books, ask relevant questions and get clarifications
> where necessary. Its not a judgement desk, just in fulfillment of  a
> process inline with guidelines. No one should be intimidated by word
> "audit".
> Our current leaders may be doing well now but how do you ensure checks and
> balances of the books of accounts.
>
> 2. Joan was not the only one, Renata also did, are you now saying they are
> not members of NCSG because they are chair of Cs today among others?
>
> 3. The truth is that Charter interpretation is good but does not require
> drafters to do so. And why I rejected that idea is that the current
> responsibility as far as the Charter is concerned including near right
> interpretation and implimentation of right decisions does not require
> drafters engagement and as far as I am concerned is belittling to say the
> least.
> At least it was not written in some foreign language but English and I am
> sure we all understand English well enough to interprete it.
>
> What I think we should do is to have a meeting, discuss any session, and
> vote on them and move on.
>  Whatever is the outcome should bind us all and case closed including the
> sharing formula, which was what I suggested abni tio.
>
> 5. I did not want to reword it as I thought we should discuss it first and
> stated so in my submission before it was shared for comments, which was
> also what I canvassed we do before sharing but you refused and now instead
> of us discussing it by taking our broader understanding and comments into
> consideration where relevant, you removed it.
>
> What options do you offer to answer the questions I raised than just
> removing those contentious sessions?
>
> It can be reworded based on the agreed terms by FC eventually since the
> terms I proposed was not ok by you and few of our colleagues.of which I
> have given an idea how to go about it.
>
> Points of note here is the (1) sharing formula and then (2) method; be
> fund shared to Cs as fund come or do Cs apply. Non of these were discussed
> as suggested and that is why are here going forth and back.
>
> 6. I also know in some of my other lives, we have used SPV - Special
> Purpose Vehicle, and not SVP, probably you meant a different thing which I
> am not aware of; and it worked well for the multi-group. If you have
> alternative, can we have it, simple, not mere saying its complicated. now
> it has legal means. Does anyone expect FC to do somethings that are not
> legal? Like I noted, once we agree on way forward, it could be reworded,
> its one of the puzzles we intend solve maybe with ICANN legal, may be since
> we cant have session to hear from ICANN legal and community, we can discuss
> it via FC meeting focusing on alternate options with ICANN legal in
> attendance.
>
> I have said this before FC functions are tripod assignment (Financial
> secretary, Treasurer and auditing).
>
> You have the mandate to call for review of charter all things equal.
>
>
> I really dont take note of accusations, they are bound to come, the only
> thing is ensure you have a good and clean slate. Thanks for reminding us to
> take criticism. I am sure we are do so madam chair with your support. I see
> it as feedback.
>
>
> Like I said earlier, sending it to list, does not solve bulk of the
> problems. The bulk stops with the FC, except if I did not understand the
> Charter well. Whatever is done under FC, its members/leaders take
> responsibility including accollades and knocks.
>
>
> I hope you understand me better now.
>
> Best of the week
> Remmy Nweke
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 7:39 am farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:56 AM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Farzii,
>>>
>>> Please see my responses below in line, thanks.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:29 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]
>>>>
>>> I think the question should be ""what does audit entail?", because the
>>> drafters of the Charter knew what the term implied, so the generally
>>> accepted definition of auditing is, the process investigating, verifying
>>> and scrutinizing financial records to ensure that transactions of an entity
>>> are recorded and financial records are accurate and in accordance with
>>> applicable rules and regulations, in this case ICANN financial
>>> requirements. The FC should be able to appoint and external auditor.
>>> I*f members think the FC should not do the audit function, does it now
>>> mean the Charter must change? For me, I would sat the FC needs to do and
>>> promote the right thing irrespective of unjustified opposition or
>>> uninformed opinions because it seems like opposing comments are challenging
>>> stipulations of the Charter*.
>>> Internal auditing on the other side help the organisation achieve its
>>> objectives and is concerned with evaluating and improving effectiveness of
>>> risk management, risk control and governance processes, and ensures
>>> reliability of financial and management reporting.
>>> The audit process follows 6 phases:
>>> 1. Agreement on term of engagement - articulation of responsibilities of
>>> involved parties and the objective of the audit, access to information and
>>> records
>>> 2. Preparing an audit plan - planning the audit based on information
>>> contained in the documents received
>>> 3. Scheduling an open meeting - with management and key admin staff to
>>> present the audit scope
>>> 4. Fieldwork - taking information from the open meeting to finalize an
>>> audit plan. Field work includes but is not limited to, review of procedures
>>> and adequacy of internal controls, checking compliance with procedures and
>>> policies and discussing problem with the organisation as they arise.
>>> 5. Drafting a report - a detailed report of findings of the audit with
>>> errors, posting problems, authorized but not yet paid expenses and other
>>> discrepancies This report must also have recommendations
>>> 6. Closing meeting - discussion of the report, soliciting response from
>>> management
>>> 7. Following up with management to check if recommendations made were
>>> implemented
>>>
>>
>> To prevent uninformed decisions you need to include those who came up
>> with the idea of having an FC and interpret it by getting much guidance.
>> Without know
>> ing the
>> background your interpretation will not be informed.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>> Hi Farzii, I also think that the FC should be supported, not only Remmy
>>> but also NCUC chair and Bruna. Also bear in mind that not all comments
>>> oppose the FC from being supported to attend ICANN meetings, please
>>> carefully go through the OP comments as some people, change their opinions
>>> around the subject in different sections of the OP.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by ncuc chair and Bruna being supported. You
>> mean to attend meetings?.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>> Any monies that belongs to NCSG  will be managed by the FC irrespective
>>>> of where it is kept and secondly how will fair and equitable allocation of
>>>> allocation to constituencies be determined if the FC does not have access
>>>> to constituency financial records or reports. The FC cannot manage but
>>>> there needs to be some level of monitoring, as the Charter does not require
>>>> this but necessitates it
>>>>
>>>
>> Yes only NCSG money. And finance committee will be involved only to make
>> sure we are OK fiscally.
>>
>>>
>>>> 4. Members raised: There should be accountability measures predicted in
>>>> the charter for the finance committee. What are our plans to address this
>>>> issue?
>>>>
>>> We can take it back to them, find out how they want to hold the FC
>>> accountable and we can take it from there.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> The application process that still needs a criteria is more suitable
>>>
>>
>> Yes and EC can come up with it. FC only monitors it with regards to how
>> it is allocated fiscally. No substantive supervision
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 6. SVP is a complicated term, I removed it, members who commented
>>>> agreed on its removal.
>>>>
>>> I agree with this removal but there were few sections (remove point II,
>>> IV & edit of #V), I commented on V on the OP draft with an alternative
>>> solution that would benefit the FC
>>>
>>
>> We agreed before the drafting was shared with mailing l
>> ist on this, don't know why it's kept in the document. I think Remmy
>> should have removed it.
>>
>> I was trying to help. But if the FC members want to insist on the
>> operating procedures as they are, unfortunately I cannot provide anymore
>> guidance and cannot repeat myself so many times. If you don't agree, you
>> don't reword nor come up with another suggestion, I will not be able to
>> help.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-FC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-FC mailing list
>>> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-FC mailing list
>> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-FC mailing list
> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20180729/c1a21e01/attachment-0001.html>