[NCSG-FC] Urgent: NCSG ABRs

[Thato Mfikwe]

Hi Stepahnie,

Thanks for your comments, please find my responses below.

Thato Mfikwe.

Dear Finance Committee Co-chairs:

*1. The Finance committee has only 1 Chairperson and it has never agreed to
having 2 co-chairs.*


It has come to my attention that three ABRs were sent in to the process
without my knowledge, and using my signature since I am responsible for the
NCSG ABRs.
https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests


*2. I do not understand when you say your siganture was used because that
would be fraudulent, so please elaborate what you mean because the ABRs
were sent under the NCSG FC name not your name.*


The Finance Committee is not a separate constituency, and at the moment it
does not have the authority to act independently in this manner.  Even if
it did, such ABRs should have been discussed on the FC list.    These had
to be shared and discussed with the NCSG EC at a minimum, not sent in
covertly.


*3. The ABR process has been difficult to coordinate even after the FC
developed a tem[plate it was not accepted and I was not aware that there is
a standard pprocedure for submitting ABR (please share). I acknowlege that
it was my mistake to submit without engaging the FC, which is one of the
reasons why we were supposed to have a meeting last Friday to discuss all
the mentioned ABRs, secondly, the ABR process was short and there was not
sufficient time to discuss and submit on time but nonetheless, the FC
discussed the need to attend ICANN meetings and participate in outreach
efforts for NCSG. Currently there is no clear guideline on how ABRs should
be submitted, unless I am missing something. On the issue of engagement
with the EC, what other decisions need to be taken by the EC and what
decisions does the FC or PC decide on? If no clarity is provided, then
these issues will keep emerging from time to time.*

*On the opposite, the decision to open a bank acount was not preceeded by
FC engagement or collaboration, what makes this instance different.*


Please explain what happened here.... I know I have been terribly busy,
what with the EPDP, the RDS II review, the budget and various other
comments.  However, I don't think I have forgotten anything with respect to
the ABRs, and I am pretty sure I did not know about these requests.

The one for CIVICRM is totally counterproductive....the amounts are wrong,
and since we now have this funding in the core budget in the amount of 20K,
we do not need to ask for it in an ABR.


*4. I was not aware that the CIVI CRM is part of ICANN core budget, so you
may remove this ABR if that is the case. Anyway, amount were derived from
the SLA and related documents, maybe there could have been an oversight.*


Without discussing in detail the merit of these requests, I would like you
to please withdraw them and ask them to be taken off the website by COB
Monday.  You cannot send things in in my name without consultation, because
I take my responsibilities seriously.  Furthermore, and now I am speaking
to the merits of the requests, if seems to me they contradict our overall
budget comments supporting restraint.  The tone suggests that the Finance
Committee does not trust leadership to manage the money that is entrusted
to the NCSG, and that the Finance Committee needs to be enabled to step up
and manage it.  This reflects very badly on our stakeholder group, and is
not a position I support, and not just because I am the current Chair....I
do not see any evidence of financial mismanagement over the many years that
NCUC has handled the only money we receive officially.  Recent events in
NPOC, I know very little about, but the money that caused the friction had
nothing to do with the PIR funding, as far as I can ascertain.


*5. Could you please kindly share how budget comments are contradicted by
submitted ABRs by the FC? As mentioned no ABR was sent in your name. The FC
is responsible for approving and authosing expenditure, everything done
should be guided by the charter not trust on an individual. The FC has
never said that it does not trust leadership, where is that coming from?
Also please elaborate what yuou mean when saying the FC needs to be
enabled? Is it currently disabled, if so how? Also be informed that the FC
accounts for all monies received, irrespective of source, so inclusion is
key in finance related decisions and actions*


I am deeply sympathetic to the need for regional outreach and development,
this is what is behind the security and human rights outreach request, but
we should have discussed these additional requests to coordinate, and to
get the facts straight.


*6. I agree, we have been attempting to discuss fundraising issues without
any progress in the last 12 months or so, and these discussions are also
planned to take place with community members durng ICANN64. The charter
also clearly states that the FC must develop and eploy a fundraising plan.*

*7. Lastly, most of the things you outlined here were supposed to be
discussed in the meeeting that never took place in order to ensure that we
have a structured way of working because currently it seems like the FC has
no clear guideline on how it should operate.*

*8. Is there any decision that the FC can make independently or not? For
instance, FC action plans,do they need approval from the EC, if so why is
the NCSG treasure not seating in NCSG EC meetings because this is one of
the reasons why the FC will always be seen as opposing decisions or acting
in contrary because transparency within the EC leaves a lot to be desired
in regard to the FC.*


*9. I am still yet to remember any decision that was taken by the FC that
was supported by the EC. I proposed the FC have a meeting next week, when
you are available to put most these issues to rest. You may cancelthe CIVI
CRM ABR only until the FC as agreed to removal of all submitted ABRs.*
*My proposal, the current chair of NCSG needs to help bridge the
communiacation and engagement gap that exists within the EC and the FC not
further widen the gap by challenging or putting unncessary pressure. Also
note that the FC does not have opportunity to travel and participate in
ICANN meetings besides squatting for ICANN fellowships which are never
guaranteed, thanks.*

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:18 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Dear Finance Committee Co-chairs:
>
> It has come to my attention that three ABRs were sent in to the process
> without my knowledge, and using my signature since I am responsible for the
> NCSG ABRs.
> https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/NCSG+-+FY20+Additional+Budget+Requests
>
> The Finance Committee is not a separate constituency, and at the moment it
> does not have the authority to act independently in this manner.  Even if
> it did, such ABRs should have been discussed on the FC list.    These had
> to be shared and discussed with the NCSG EC at a minimum, not sent in
> covertly.
>
> Please explain what happened here.... I know I have been terribly busy,
> what with the EPDP, the RDS II review, the budget and various other
> comments.  However, I don't think I have forgotten anything with respect to
> the ABRs, and I am pretty sure I did not know about these requests.
>
>
> The one for CIVICRM is totally counterproductive....the amounts are wrong,
> and since we now have this funding in the core budget in the amount of 20K,
> we do not need to ask for it in an ABR.
>
> Without discussing in detail the merit of these requests, I would like you
> to please withdraw them and ask them to be taken off the website by COB
> Monday.  You cannot send things in in my name without consultation, because
> I take my responsibilities seriously.  Furthermore, and now I am speaking
> to the merits of the requests, if seems to me they contradict our overall
> budget comments supporting restraint.  The tone suggests that the Finance
> Committee does not trust leadership to manage the money that is entrusted
> to the NCSG, and that the Finance Committee needs to be enabled to step up
> and manage it.  This reflects very badly on our stakeholder group, and is
> not a position I support, and not just because I am the current Chair....I
> do not see any evidence of financial mismanagement over the many years that
> NCUC has handled the only money we receive officially.  Recent events in
> NPOC, I know very little about, but the money that caused the friction had
> nothing to do with the PIR funding, as far as I can ascertain.
>
> I am deeply sympathetic to the need for regional outreach and development,
> this is what is behind the security and human rights outreach request, but
> we should have discussed these additional requests to coordinate, and to
> get the facts straight.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> NCSG Chair
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190210/743ec88b/attachment.html>