[NCSG-FC] NCSG Additional Budget Request (ABR) Form - Invitation to edit

thatomfikwe thatomfikwe at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 14:22:48 EET 2019

Dear members,
It has come to my attention that the FC and ECs of contituencies and NCSG (not sure about NPOC yet, not sure also if NCSG EC deliberated on this), but seems like we all cannot reach consensus on how the ABR process should work. Although some did not provide comment but just mentioned and saw the initiative as not appropriate.FOR purposes of submitting on time I would recommend that the leaders proceed according to their suggestions but be aware that the lack coordination make this tough for the FC.
Bear in mind that the NCSG chair was calling for the FC to help coordinate the submissions before the deadline.
My confusion comes when FC responds to the NCSG chair call by developing a google form which is eventually not used, but later a different form is used for the same purpose. The FC consults with members and leaders or was is supposed to circulate the google form? If members do not respond to ABR calls then we have a problem, meaning few members are either happy with the current status quo or understand how to participate, this is one of the reason why the FC needs to be more active with support within outside the SG.
As mentioned in another response the FC was not active but it now is and could use all the support. The issue of the charter needs to be revisited, seems like we tend to forget what the charter directions and stipulations state as we need to abide by respective precepts.
We need to avoid the use of strong language because nobody is fighting or under threat here. Disagreement and challenging are two different things, the FC cannot always agree with leaders and still have no intention to impose itself.
In attempt to ease the process of submission, the FC created this form to consult with leaders and their EC before final decisions are taken by appropriate committees. This was going to help with the drafting because the community would have made input.
The FC has never imposed itself on constituencies and this has been communicated and clarified in several emails.
Based on how the conversations on this thread are moving, it seems like there wont be collaborations amongst constitiencies and the SG meaning that everyone or committees will push their own idea or agenda.
Note: the FC is willing to help but clear instructions need to be given to void these types of disagreements. The FC cannot guess or draft ABRs without community input unless leaders and ECs will play that role.
The FC is here to also help new leaders intergrate not challenge them. We need to work together irrespective of how we may feel about it because the FC itself need the support of leaders to ensure NCSG has a firm financial footing.
What I am starting to take note of is that these power struggles taking place amongst committees and ECs are deeply rooted and not easy to uproot. We need to respect each others role and exercise fairness as leaders and representatives of our constituency, thanks.
@Stephanie, please indicate a clear way forward so that we can move.
Thato Mfikwe.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> Date: 12/01/2019  20:37  (GMT+02:00) To: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> Cc: NCSG Finance Committee <ncsg-fc at lists.ncsg.is>, Joan Kerr <fbscster at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [NCSG-FC] NCSG Additional Budget Request (ABR) Form - Invitation to edit 
Honestly, sometimes members don't even comment. 
Maryam was a big help last year so if you can throw out some ideas on the mailing list, I am sure she can help with drafting and fill in the forms.


On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:31 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Farzi, I think we are trying to follow the same ad hoc process that was conducted in the past year. I will send the form to both lists now in order to ease the process. 

Remmy, re. what you said I think we have a problem. While we are in need of volunteers to help draft the ABRs and even get some ideas around (if you had any you could help us by sharing them on the list), the Finance Committee is basically saying this is not their job to do - while writing ABRs is something we are trying to do on behalf of and for the stakeholder group and its constituencies. 
I believe that in order to fully oversee the implementation of our requests - if we manage to get any of them out - the FC would need to actually know them, as well as the submission process. By that we could do a proper follow up of what worked and what didnt. And imho, helping us draft them would be a way of getting the FC actually involved in the process. 
Last but not least, I dont agre that anyone here is trying to micromanage anyone. We are trying to actually put an ABR proposal forward and continue to work for the constituencies. Such accusations do nothing but expose our work. If after reading this email you continue to think asking the FC to help us draft ABRs is an attempt of micromanaging, consider helping us without your FC Hat and simply as constituency member - and if your other volunteering work keeps you from doing so it is also fine. (I myself have taken a few break from reading the Geonames public comment due to the ABRs) 
Em sáb, 12 de jan de 2019 às 16:29, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> escreveu:

Thanks Farzi.  I am sorry that we are so last minute.  I should have pushed this a while ago....
However, we still have time to come up with some good ABRs.  We don't need a doxen....we just need solid proposals that, as Farzi has said, the organization will have a hard time refusing.
cheers Stephanie

On 2019-01-12 13:22, farzaneh badii wrote:

Hi Steph

Here is an ad hoc process I as NCUC and NCSG chair. I consulted with ICANN staff as well as NCSG  members and NCUC members  for ABRs, looked over what was accepted in other stakeholder groups
 and constituencies (that makes it hard to say no to us) consider priorities of NCSG and Cs and members comments. FC was not active at the time so I sent it to NCSG EC. NCSG EC does not check NCSG mailing list regularly so it's better to share with them whatever
 you share with the mailing list in advance so that they don't consider it as a late submission.

Here is the Google doc of ABRs last year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PpgItPf9siL-HnkuyDICL73y1NTg7B2UpmlKhk67CZU/edit

But since we don't really have time I guess you can just wing it by using the Google Doc form and sending it to the mailing list.

I personally think FC should have nothing to do with how Cs submit their ABRs. They can suggest something but not impose. 


On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

I would like to back Bruna up here.  Guys, we have to focus on substance.  So far, nobody has  a draft ABR that is circulating for comments.  Bruna and I should not have to do this ourselves.  I know that Farzi
 wound up drafting ABRs last year, at the last minute.  Bruna and I are now doing the same.

Process is important, but it does not replace substance. Let's get some projets going, people.  After Monday, you will have a whole year to work on the forms.
Cheers Stephanie

On 2019-01-12 11:26, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:

Dear Remmy, 

I do agree that the FC has to work together with the Leadership teams in both constituencies and I mentioned to Thato in a call we had this week that NCUC EC is here to support him in all possible ways. But just so we can work together, I believe that
 communication is key - that meaning we could have a closer conversation between the FC, the NCUC EC and the constituency.

At the same time, Remmy, I hope I am misinterpretating your
 email as I did not appreciate the tone of it, as well as your attempt to challenge a decision taken by the NCUC Executive Committee.  As explained, we very much appreciate the FC work and do want to work together to the committee, but we did not find it feasible
 to adopt the proposed form given that the ABRs deadline is coming in less than 3 days. By adopting the proposed form now we would have to have an extra amount of work in reading through the suggestions, selecting which ones we are submitting and then starting
 to draft the actual ABR form. Today is the 12th of January and the deadline for ABRs submission, as you may know, is the 15th - therefore the FC suggestion was not adopted this year in order to avoid adding another layer of work in the ABRs submission when
 we really dont have time for that. 

With regards to your comment on transparency, you might have seen my email to the NCUC list asking for ABRs suggestions and volunteers to draft it. While I think this is something that the FC could be onboard I am not going to take the time to ask why
 neither of you volunteered to draft anything or sent us any suggestion yet, because I do think we have to work together and I dont believe that picking fights with each other will help us achieving anything here. But, Remmy, as soon as NCUC submits its ABRs,
 they will be shared on the list - I might even be able to do it before the deadline just so we have time for corrections and community comments. I do believe that the deadline is not ideal, but we are all volunteers here and I am working with and how I can,
 and I do believe that the FC is doing the same. 

Having said that, can we count with any of the FC members help in drafting ABRs ? 


Em sáb, 12 de jan de 2019 às 07:40, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> escreveu:

Thanks Bruna
Giving the foregoing and latent position of NCUC to an attempt to enhance process, I think it's important for FC representatives to be included in their constituency Excom to enable them work in line and in alignment with the C's rather than
 across purposes.

For instance, there is no clear reason for the non adoption or comment to improve it which was initiated due to the call by NCSG chair, and to help in collation of ABR afterwards, thus the NCUC decline is already counter productive to transparency
 and accountability effort by FC.

But take it that FC reps are part of Excom it will afford FC to have sufficient background to the decline and come up with more acceptable concept.

In fact it seems we have three C's - NPOC, NCUC and FC under NCSG.
Until we revisit this honestly not much progress will be made as we continue to fall short of ICANN processes of genuine transparency and accountability in our folds.

Happy weekend everyone as we ponder.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, 7:44 p.m. Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com wrote:

Dear all, 

NCUC EC Discussed it on our call yesterday and we decided that adopting the form is not an optimal solution for now. 

Although we very much appreciate the FC work and the idea of coming up with a mechanism to make our lives easier, in light of the short timeframe NCUC might not be able to adopt it now. Hopefully we will have the chance to enhance the proposed form for
 next year's ABRs process, and with the appropriate timeframe. 

Thank you very much. 


Em sex, 11 de jan de 2019 às 10:56, Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi all,

Just a friendly reminder that the ABR form need to be circulated today, please make your input since we have very limited time to meet the deadline.

Should there be no comments by 10pm UTC, Iit will be considered and taken that everyone is okay with the structure and extend of data collected, thanks.

Thato Mfikwe.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

Good day
This is the draft template for the ABR to help us coordinate the process.
Kindly review and let's have your comments before it's shared on NCSG list on or before Friday.
Remmy Nweke

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Remmy Nweke (via Google Forms)
<remmyn at gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019, 5:27 p.m.

Subject: NCSG Additional Budget Request (ABR) Form - Invitation to edit

To: <remmyn at gmail.com>

Cc: <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>

 Nweke has invited you to edit the following form:

 Additional Budget Request (ABR) Form

 in Forms

This is a courtesy copy of an email for your record only. It's not the same email your collaborators received. Click

here to learn more.


Bruna Martins dos Santos 

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos



NCSG-FC mailing list

NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is



NCSG-FC mailing list

NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is



Bruna Martins dos Santos 

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos


Bruna Martins dos Santos 
Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20190113/752e9307/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NCSG-FC mailing list