[NCSG-FC] [Ext] ICANN64 FC meeting preparations

[Remmy Nweke]

>
> Dear Stephanie
>
> *Thanks for the questions. I think it’s a bold step in resolving whatever
> quagmire we are currently in as FC with hope it will avail us more
> understanding. I will try to respond to them from my prism inline below.*
>
> I can only speak for myself here folks, but I think it would really help
> me understand the ongoing work of the FC if I could read the plan.  Where
> is the plan?   Here are a few sample questions, on a basic skeleton.
>
> *Incorporation of NCSG*
>
> ·  what are the goals of the FC in terms of NCSG's structure?
>
> *The FC goals are driven by the NCSG Charter which include but not limited
> to entrenching:*
>
> *(a) ** responsible fund raising mechanism in place, *
>
> *(b)**setting voluntary contribution levels for members, *
>
> *(c) **determining procedures for the distribution of funds, and *
>
> *(d)**for monitoring the utilization of funds. *
>
> *(e) **The Treasurer function. *
>
> *In addition, FC tends to among others:*
>
> •       *Develop and deploy a fund-­‐raising plan for the NCSG;*
>
> •       *Work with the ICANN staff to determine levels of support
> available to the NCSG;*
>
> •       *Work with ICANN finance officers to insure the NCSG and its
> Constituencies receive fair and equivalent financial support from ICANN;*
>
> •       *Accounting for any funds received by the NCSG from any source.
> This accounting will include the following:*
>
> *§§*  *All funds raised by voluntary membership fees or otherwise must be
> held in a separate NCSG account.*
>
> *§§ **Proper controls must be implemented.*
>
> *§§ **Regarding Expenditures:*
>
> •       *All expenditures under 500 Euro may be made on the authority of
> the NCSG Treasurer*
>
> •        *All expenditures over 500 Euro must be approved by the
> NCSG-­‐FC*
>
> *§§ **Financial reports must be prepared annually and be made public.*
>
> •       *Provide internal conflict resolution process regarding funds.*
>
> •       *Provide the oversight of the Treasurer function.*
>
> • *Fulfill any other accounting, auditing or other prescribed financial
> requirements as set by the ICANN Board of Directors for organizations
> within the ICANN structure*
>
> • *Document methods and procedures used for accounting, reporting and
> budget creation. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-­**‐*
> *EC.*
>
> ·  do we need to be a legal entity to do the work we have been doing at
> ICANN?
>
> *My understanding this is that currently some of the Cs, in fact both
> Constituencies have already become legal entities and has the capability of
> receiving fund if need be and there may be NO need to engage in another
> process considering our diversity and very short tenure of offices. Thus,
> recommended that we use what we have to get what we need. That is using any
> of the Cs now to open an SPV – Special Purpose Vehicle account, just like
> ISOC did in setting up PIR to serve a special purpose until such a time,
> the footing is clearer and scope warrants stand-alone legal entity.*
>
> ·  If not, why do it?  What are the risks and benefits of being a legal
> entity?
>
> *As for the risks of being a separate legal entity by NCSG, for now, as
> ICANN offshoot for non-Commercial, we need to do the registration in the
> United States and any other country as may be agreed upon, which has a
> process including setting up the BoT – Board of Trustees which involves
> residency etc very often. This will also entail another level or layer of
> advisory team outside the NCSG EC, hence my earlier suggestion for us to
> use what we have to get what we want via SPV.*
>
> *SPV account actually is to ensure that every external fund inflow resides
> in a place as may be agreed by both Cs and NCSG EC with an MoU, so that we
> do not fall into issues when the current leadership of any chosen account
> holder elapses and avail NCSG full control of such account under FC as
> mandated in the charter at all times.*
>
> *Fundraising strategy*
>
> ·  what exactly do we need money for?
>
> *We need money for outreach for membership drive and showcase of what NCSG
> family is, and has been doing, stand for and support NCSG community and
> individual work including but not limited to distinct and independent
> research by NPOC | NCUC or NCSG, as may become necessary for internal use
> and support our position, on the side line of policy development and
> building capacity of our members across financial transparency and policy
> engagement and development, among others. Especially where ICANN support
> cannot cover immediately; As you know most ICANN supports are tied to
> regions, which does not preclude that some other regions at the same time
> do not need support within the remits of outlines above. For instance,
> ICANN can support global IGF, what of the regional IGFs etc or national IG
> events. These are revolving outreach programmes.*
>
> ·  do we have a current inventory of all the existing funding we receive?
>
> *The only one known to me/FC is from PIR – Public Interest Registry, this
> has to be expanded with the outreach targeted at Donors beyond PIR and
> across regions.*
>
> ·  Why would funders give us money?
>
> *For the interest of non-commercial purposes and those who want more
> inclusive internet eco-system despite diversity and in tune with NCSG goals
> and objectives (Mission) to ensure their voices are heard and they
> participate actively against all odds envisioned in commercial stakes.*
>
> ·  Which jurisdictions would they come from?
>
> *Funding could come from a global purpose and largely regional as
> explained earlier which are tied to specific regions and that is one area
> FC intend to target too. Like the CIPESA Internet Freedom Forum has a
> session on funding and donors session. Just a few FC is targeting all
> things equal for this year.*
>
> ·  would it be better to have local funders or thematic funders
> contribute to some of our members separately, rather than give to an NCSG
> entity?
>
> *For now, both ways are fine, but for purposes of this, NCSG charter was
> not specific on this and if we must have local funders or via thematic
> funding to some members. Its worthy of exploring but then, FC should be
> looking at it from the point of purse that is available to support members,
> knowing fully well that funders require at least organistional endorsement
> to pathway with their funds, a clout some of our upcoming members and small
> membership organizations may not have. One can confidently say that NCSG is
> the umbrella body of non-commercial users.*
>
> ·  are membership fees part of this funding strategy?  If so, do we have
> an idea of the membership fees?
>
> *For me, with my experience, membership fees will be a clog, considering
> that in some countries, especially in Africa, where I am currently serving
> as the Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society
> (ACSIS), charges on dollar fee surpasses some of the annual dues
> affordable, which does not make sense to be making money for eTransaction
> operators. While some have restriction occasioned to their regional
> policies. For instance, we access paypal in Nigeria in terms of usage if
> preloaded, but cannot receive fund via paypal due to government policy.*
>
> *For NPOC charter “**NPOC will not collect dues, fees, or subscriptions
> from its members.”*
>
> ·  do we need the FC members, if they are going to be auditors, to have
> those credentials?
>
> *Credentials matters and I will not place that over and above industry
> experience linked to finance/audit management. We may not get strict
> auditors because of the kind of work we do (voluntary, except we are ready
> to start paying auditors per say); but people who are willing to learn
> could be another area, definitely not devoid of experience such as managing
> an NGO could be an ideal, among others.*
>
> *Budget*
>
> ·  at the moment we do not prepare an NCSG budget, at least I am unaware
> of it.  I have only participated in NCSG for 5-6 years, I do not recall
> seeing one.  What are the plans, who would do it, how would it be approved.
>
> *Well, you are very right. I have not seen one myself too. This is one of
> the streamlining for accountability that current FC envisaged to entrench
> and its not going to work if Cs are not cooperating. Another instance is
> that Cs need to prepare this, invariably FC can advice if need be as you
> cannot prepare budget and still audit same. This will be achieved by
> ensuring that each Cs either through the Financial Secretary or Secretariat
> prepares their budget and send to NCSG FC, even if its for the records,
> because they have their individual C exco to approve spending. NCSG Excom
> needs a copy too to enable it also prepare own budget leveraging possibly
> from what the Cs may have submitted to ensure they do not run across
> purposes but rather driving strength from Cs.*
>
> *And based on this, FC can also submit its own budget lines likewise the
> Policy Committee (PC) since both are the legally recognized sub-entities in
> the charter based on activities to be executed within the year under review
> in collaboration with NCSG EC. *
>
> *We can create capacity building on budgeting for ICANN as annual
> refresher course to keep leadership of Cs and NCSG abreast of development
> and feedback on any challenges using pre-ICANN sessions.*
>
> *You can tag the Committees budget as operational budgets while that of Cs
> as capital and we can take up from there. This will make it easy for ABR
> where necessary too to fill in the gap of engagements.*
>
> *These will be merged to ensure everyone is extending a helping hand to
> another based on equal footing.*
>
> *We can develop this via a budget template either in existence or fresh
> template, so as to ease harmonization of the budget session eventually.*
>
> ·  at the moment we do not appear to be doing oversight of the funds
> approved for travel requests.  Should that be in an annual public financial
> report?
>
> *Yes, very correct and its part of the challenges. Yes, we may be members
> of NCSG, but these have to be submitted afterwards, either quarterly or
> annually as may be agreed upon, but yearly is mandatory. These are some of
> the understanding required to co-exist in this space. The oversight does
> not mean FC non-approval as long as its contained in the formal budget
> approved/submitted for the year, but to take note and make comments
> thereafter on judicious or otherwise use of the said funds to improve
> future applications. *
>
> *One of it is that Cs may give scholarships/fellowships to an ICANN public
> meeting, how will FC know if such scholarships were judiciously expended to
> the letter if not by monitoring the processes to the letter as well and may
> be interfacing with scholarship awardees at venue to know areas of
> dissatisfaction so as to improve on processes. *
>
> *There is need to also have its own session accommodated in such a meeting
> so as to kill two birds with a stone and create awareness, earn more public
> trust and openness, in order to provide background to FC reports eventually
> on how funds received were used either to ICANN.org or funders for future
> engagements and sustained funding or affiliation as most funders will
> request feedback of funds.*
>
> ·  How would an NCSG FC assume oversight of NPOC and NCUC spending?  Not
> clear in the Charter, unless I am misreading it.  There is no central NCSG
> control.
>
> *It behoves on the leadership of NPOC and NCUC to trust FC enough and send
> or share information as deem fit and as may be required or demanded. Part
> of the oversight is physical monitoring of activities both at ICANN and
> outside where such a fund is being expended as long as the community
> funding and activities are involve. This will put the FC representatives in
> good standing to defend any claim, allegations or query that may arise
> thereof from ICANN.org or funders, thereby offering better insight when
> necessary.*
>
> *Communications and transparency*
>
> ·  Who is the FC accountable to?  How does it communicate to that
> responsible party?
>
> *Based on our NCSG charter which sets up the FC, communication to
> community is key but in terms of accountable, its ICANN.org and funders,
> which stated inter alia in Section 2.6: *
>
> ·        *“Accounting for any funds received by the NCSG from any source.*
>
> ·        *Financial reports must be prepared annually and be made public.*
>
> ·        *Fulfill any other accounting, auditing or other prescribed
> financial requirements as set by the ICANN Board of Directors for
> organizations within the ICANN structure.*
>
> ·        *Document methods and procedures used for accounting, reporting
> and budget creation. Such documentation is subject to review by the
> NCSG-­‐EC.”*
>
>
>
> *With the aforementioned, FC reports to ICANN.org and funders whereas its
> annual report must be made public, which is the community and by extension
> our respective Cs in terms of debriefing (feedback), at Cs Exco sessions or
> as may be required.*
>
>
>
> *NB: Of course where good communication exists as it should, one expects
> that NCSG EC and Cs will have the privilege of the content prior to/soon
> after sending it out to ICANN.org or funders, since it will be coming from
> them anyways.*
>
> ·  Does the FC have the authority to give direction to Maryam?  In other
> words, does she support the FC independently, or is that supposed to happen
> through the NCSG EC?
>
> *I think that Maryam and other ICANN support staff are here to help us
> achieve our various assignments, goals and mandates, and as such could take
> a direction to assist any given committee as long as they are
> constitutionally or legally constituted. Whether the direction is an
> authority resides with the chair or person giving the direction, so as to
> take full responsibility of the action when it matters. Therefore, every
> ICANN staff supports every community including committees independently.
> Theirs is facilitation.*
>
> *As I have explained based on the charter, FC being the supposed auditor
> now should assume some level of autonomy but under good understanding keeps
> NCSG EC briefed, that is why communication, trust and understanding are
> key, but I do not think that is the way some of us understand it hence the
> challenge in communication. And that is why its vital to include FC Reps in
> NCSG EC and their respective Cs, even at observer level, as they are not
> ‘supposed’ to be heard at such meetings outside advisory.*
>
> ·  do we have an agenda for the Kobe face to face meeting?  will it be
> open to all stakeholders, or closed to NCSG members?
>
> *Yes, of course. I am aware, there is an agenda for Kobe and so all other
> meetings will be open for all stakeholders and is part of the planned
> outreach series to bridge the gap between FC and ICANN finance as well as
> NCSG community specifically, as listed above.*
>
> These are just a few questions I have.  I do not quite understand what
> Remmy is saying below, and am simply trying to put a few questions down to
> kickstart a strategic discussion.
>
> *Thanks for putting the questions, definitely not a few and I hope my
> "few" responses will be helpful in charting the way forward.*
>
> *Thanks again*
>
> Remmy Nweke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20190221/c3d51c2f/attachment-0001.html>