Patrik

I see in the agenda the following:

" ICG Independent Secretariat"

Yes I agree but how many times you argued with me that there is no time to go for a RFP and so on.

Somebody else said, why when there is ICANN  available secretariat why we should opt to have independent secretariat.

When I referred to the GAC secretariat procurement ,you disagreed with me

Now every body came back to accept the initial proposal that I made.

I am puzzled by this back and fort

May you explain pls

TKS

kAVOUSS z

2014-09-01 20:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Patrik

Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter

I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached

KAVOUSS

2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

Joseph,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

   Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion...

On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

   Regards, Patrik Fältström

_______________________________________________
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