[NCSG-FC] Urgent: NCSG ABRs

Tue Feb 12 04:46:02 EET 2019

Thank you Thato for your prompt action.

Reading you I do believe there is a honest misunderstanding about the role
of the FC within the NCSG.

I will take the time at a later point, but hopefully not in the too distant
future, to provide everyone with an answer to certain of your statements
for further discussion.

Have a nice evening,

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Thato for further clarification.
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am sure by now it's obvious there is no perfidious intended, it's all
> for betterment of NCSG and I am sure better if not improved strategy will
> soon emerge.
>
> I wish to sincerely apologize once again to the chair @Stephanie for the
> insertion of her name in one of the ABRs.
>
> I, like Thato was not privy to that and anyone in your kind of  situation
> should have been alarmed as well among other popup issues thereof.
>
> Hope our apologies on that mixup will be considered for acceptance. Thanks.
>
> Like noted earlier, we must do something to strengthen FC and NCSG excom
> communication moving forward and possibly consider inclusion of reps to
> their respective constituencies and even have joint session even twice a
> year or quarterly pending when Communication channels are strengthened.
>
> I thank you all for your understanding.
>
> Regards
> Remmy
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 2:05 p.m. Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190211/f808275c/attachment-0001.html>