[NCSG-FC] Urgent: NCSG ABRs

Sun Feb 10 23:18:17 EET 2019

Thato, Remy,

I understand that there are certain grievances regarding the role of the FC
within NCSG more generally. You have voiced those repeatedly and there is
indeed space for improvement. The ABR submission is not the context to
discuss that.

The way I understand it, as far as ABRs are concerned, the NCSG Chair is
there to simply observe that a given ABR is the result of community
consensus. Neither the EC, nor FC, nor PC, nor any other C has the
"authority" to submit an ABR. ABRs are the product of the whole NCSG
community, not the product of any of the Cs. I would thus dispute your
understanding that your ABRs needed to be discussed with the FC: they
needed to be discussed with the whole NCSG.

None of the ABRs you submitted are the product of such discussion and
consensus and for that reason alone I believe they should both be
withdrawn. This is not reflective of their intrinsic value (although it
does appear that your ABR regarding our CRM services provider is based on a
misunderstanding.) I think this is the basic rule of the functioning of the
ICANN community as a whole, and that it transcends Charters and other such
"legal" documents and entitlements such documents may give to various
committees.

That you did not have time to do so because the ABR process was rushed;
maybe. We were all perpetrators and victims, to a certain extent. But that
is not a reason to submit them without discussion, unfortunately. While I
do not doubt your good faith in this, you will understand that this may
look like an attempt to fly things under the radar and that it reflects
badly on the NCSG as a whole, and more specifically on the NCSG leadership
and you.

I will be happy to collaborate with you in figuring out how you can put
your time and energies to the service of a revitalised FC, for the benefit
of the community.

I thank you in advance for your collaboration,

Raphael

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 2:41 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Stephanie,
> Thanks for your notes which is hereby acknowledged.
>
> Having gone through the trend and responses, I wish to sustain Thato's
> position and responses and wish also to reiterate that there is no need to
> spoil for war as none of the ABR is for any individual good but for the
> betterment of NCSG in general.
>
> For now, we have only one chair and vice chair (secretariat).
>
> However, I  see no reason for cancelling any ABR outside the fact of
> alleged duplicate as explained by you on CIVI CRM and will suggest that FC
> chair withdraw that one precisely. I must also confess, I am not aware it
> has been covered in any other budget plan or line.
>
> Moving forward, we must take the two NCSG constituted Committees (PC and
> FC) along as equal branches to make NCSG stand strong and encourage them to
> deliver on their Charter-driven mandates.
>
> Apologies as you know they should have been discussed and Mr. Chair has
> also apologised but I earnestly think the communication gap that exist
> needs to be deliberately closed with your kind support and the whole EC.
>
> Like I noted earlier, every of the ABR were in good faith and were never
> done to undermine your office or NCSG and hereby solicit your understanding.
>
> Please accept my highest regards and assurances.
> ____
> 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>
>
> *2019 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>*
> 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 Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 6:31 PM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20190210/25fcad79/attachment-0001.html>