[NCSG-FC] Urgent: NCSG ABRs

Mon Feb 11 15:05:27 EET 2019

Hi all,

I requested Maryam to remove all ABRs subnitted by the FC as per the
request from the NCUC and NCSG chairs.

The lack of communication is becoming a serious problem, as I dont remember
seeing any call for ABR submissions on the NCSG mailing list and last year
it was still not clear how ABRs will be subbmitted. The only thing
solicited this year was just community comments not participation.

There was still no discussion within the FC on submitted ABRs? We must be
objective in our critism.

It is only an assumption or excuse that, "had the ABR template been
acceppted, then it means all requests submitted were not going to be
discussed with Chairs or ECs", because the discussion was about to be made
public before it got rejected by 2 chairs at FC level, there was no intend
to faciltate community submissions single handedly, the proceess was
intended to be inclusive as that is how it started off.

If nobody is getting joy or gaining trust from FC activities and actions,
then it would be proper to get a clear recommendation on what needs to be
done to further prevent this problems from reoccuring. Anyway this is the
first incident of the FC where something was submitted without
consultation, but if this warrants action then I do not see the reason why
we should be throwing words around as apposed to making recommendations and
taking action. Is the FC that horrible, if so, what do you recommend?

NOTE: The FC values inputs from observers, although decisions and voting is
made by the FC members themselves according to the charter.

My action as per your recommendation: I removed the ABRs, so what other
change do you wish to see happen?

Thato Mfikwe.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:52 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thanks for the email, Steph. I am still surprised by the lack of
> transparency regarding the submission of such ABRs.
>
> Especially because, as you mentioned, the FC is indeed not a constituency
> and we never had a committee like the policy committee or any of the ECs
> submitting requests under our stakeholder group without notifying the
> members or the chair, who often is the person who responds for the
> constituency of the stakeholder group.
>
> Thato and Remmy, it is actually a shock to me that you are alleging that
> there is no clear procedure for submitting ABRs - once you click on the
> submission form you can see that you need to mention the chair's name and
> both me and Stephanie sent in consultations to our lists looking for
> suggestions to be discussed with the ec - this was very clear in my email.
> To consider that the FC considered it ok to submit an ABR without notifying
> the chairs is appaling.
>
> I dont think its clear to the FC that we all want to work together in
> identifying possible areas for outreaching and fundraising, and I mentioned
> it to Thato in the call we had a few weeks ago. But in order for us to
> provide full support to the FCs activities we need to (a) understand your
> goals and (b) develop an strategic plan and lastly (c) be able to fully
> trust in each other. When we learn that the FC has submitted 3 ABRs without
> even letting the SG know, the attitude makes it seem as if you both dont
> trust us.
>
> Also important to note that the template developed by the FC to collect
> ABRs suggestions was not adopted especially in light of the deadline, the
> proposal only got to us 2 weeks before the deadline - a period in which the
> proposals should be taking form before us chairs reporting them to the
> community and submitting. And in my emails about this I explained that this
> could be a solution for next years submissions, bc we would have time to
> improve the forms and submission process. I can say I am actually glad we
> did not accept the template, because it could have resulted in many more
> submissions without any of the NCSG and its constituencies chairs being
> notified.
>
> Having said that, I support Stephanie's request for the withdrawal of such
> ABRs, they look unfinished and reflect very poorly on NCSG and its
> constituencies.
>
> best,
> bruna
>
>
>
>
> Em seg, 11 de fev de 2019 às 00:14, Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
>> Another clarity, when ABR swere submitted, they did not have they were
>> not bearibg the NCSG Chairss name, not sure  why the name was inserted.
>> Will follow up.
>>
>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190211/89071176/attachment.html>