I fully support this approach for the Secretariat. Russ On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:38 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Just want to lend my support for the views expressed by Martin, Jon, Adiel and Patrik.
Thanks‹
J.
On 8/14/14, 8:08 , "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks Adiel for this: I have no problems with the revised text and am grateful to you for picking up my points of concern.
I share Jon & Patrik's views on the contracting point. "It is the control over the secretariat and its actions that is the important thing" and "As long as the function reports directly to the ICG as Theresa suggested," I'd be happy to use ICANN's good offices as contracting agency. As I've flagged before, I am not convinced that any other obvious intermediary contracting party would offer anything additional and could bring a mass of other problems. (I use the word intermediary as, if I understand correctly, the money comes from ICANN and the service is entirely to the ICG.)
Thanks again Adiel
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.co] Sent: 14 August 2014 13:56 To: Adiel Akplogan Cc: Martin Boyle; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Adiel:
FWIW I support using ICANN as the independent contracting entity for the secretariat per Theresa's email. It seems nonsensical to me that we use ICANN to do certain administrative tasks, such as securing meeting rooms, translation services, travel support, etc., but we don't want to use ICANN as the contracting entity for the secretariat. As long as the function reports directly to the ICG as Theresa suggested, I support going in that direction. If we don't use ICANN, it would increase dramatically the amount of time and effort on us to fill the role, as well as prolong the time we would be without a secretariat.
Best,
Jon
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net> wrote:
Hello all,
I have uploaded an updated version of the secretariat document. There is still one fundamental question we have to clearly answer:
- Are we still going to contract the secretariat via an Independent Organisation (considering the opinion shared by Theresa)?
If yes, who will that be? Will we need an RFP to select the third party contractor? How will we select that such entity that will be sufficiently independent for every one?
Thanks.
- a.
On Aug 7, 2014, at 15:50 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks Adiel, that all looks fine.
My note on Chairs as opposed to Chair would be to allow whatever combination of Chair + co-/vice-chairs we eventually agree to, simply avoiding the bottleneck of a single point of contact. But I'm fairly relaxed.
Narelle's language looks generally in the right direction. I prefer the idea of clear separation of functions so that the Secretariat is not being distracted by fielding administrative tasks better performed by the ICANN team.
- Co-ordinate the arrangement of face to face meeting venues along with related logistics with ICANN and other third parties where appropriate
This looks fine, but could we put the " where appropriate" at the start of the sentence? Ie, "Where appropriate, coordinate the arrangement ... and other third parties?
- Arrange ICG member travel, as and when required in conjunction with ICANN
Can't this just be excluded as it is entirely the role of the ICANN team?
- Liaise with ICANN for administrative matters as required by the ICG and Chair
Liaising is nice wording!
Cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg