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

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks Remmy, this is useful.  Lets keep up the effort to address these substantive issues!

Stephanie

On 2019-02-21 08:14, Remmy Nweke wrote:
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



_______________________________________________
NCSG-FC mailing list
NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto: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/20190221/2c259d22/attachment-0001.html>