Dear all, Attached is a revised version of the document. I have tried to incorporate and consolidate all the comments. I have left out some of the specific references made to tasks/activities in coordination with ICANN staff at this stage as I think we still need to clarifier that aspect and until then we should leave that out of this document. When appointed if we want something to be done with ICANN dedicated supporting staff we will instruct them accordingly. Narelle I have also added in the neutrality and independence aspect in the first paragraph of the requirements. PAF, some of your comments are covered by Paul’s so I did not repeat them. In any case if I have left anything out feel free to raise. Thanks. - a.
Hi Adiel, Thanks for this. I have made some edits and comments in dropbox and copied in the attachment here. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: 05 August 2014 21:49 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2 Dear all, Attached is a revised version of the document. I have tried to incorporate and consolidate all the comments. I have left out some of the specific references made to tasks/activities in coordination with ICANN staff at this stage as I think we still need to clarifier that aspect and until then we should leave that out of this document. When appointed if we want something to be done with ICANN dedicated supporting staff we will instruct them accordingly. Narelle I have also added in the neutrality and independence aspect in the first paragraph of the requirements. PAF, some of your comments are covered by Paul's so I did not repeat them. In any case if I have left anything out feel free to raise. Thanks. - a.
Thank you Martin for you input and comments. Responses below:
[MB1]: To mark out the different roles of secretary/secretariat and support functions which will continue to be operated by ICANN (won’t it?).
Yes, I think that is the trend, so I’m ok with the suggested change.
"The ICG agreed to have the Secretariat contracted through an independent organisation (not ICANN), while funding for the support team and the Secretariat will primarily be provided from the budget set aside by ICANN.[2]”
[MB2]: We need to say who the independent organisation is, not who it isn’t. As I said before, I’m not sure any of us can be considered “independent.” MB: We need to say who the independent organisation is, not who it isn’t. As I said before, I’m not sure any of us can be considered “independent.”
Yes we have not agreed to what that will be yet. There have been few ideas floating in London regarding that (An academic institution or another renown not for profit organisation .. etc). I agree that none of us can be fully considered “independent” as such. I though for a while about CGI.br as potential candidate. In any case we need to agree on this very quickly.
· 30 September 2015: Expected completion of Secretariat function[Martin1]
[MB3]: We should allow for overrun.
Fine with me.
requests from the ICG and its Chair; [MB4]I think that this should be “chairs” throughout the document, referring to chair and co-chairs.
If I’m correct, the final consensus that was reached is to have on chair and two vice-chairs (no co-chairs)? So using ‘Chair’ will still be correct.
Whilst the proceedings of the ICG will be conducted in English, some proficiency in any of the other five UN languages (French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese[Martin1] or Mandarin) would be an advantage.
[MB5]: Correctly Portuguese is not a UN language. (The six official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish” - http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/faqs.shtml.)
Correct thanks.
- Arrange face to face meetings' venues along with related logistics; - Arrange ICG members’ travels, as and when required;
[MB6]I think these are tasks more appropriate to the ICANN support team.
Yes, but the idea was that the secretariat is the main responsible of these tasks but could work with ICANN support team for them. Narelle Has suggested the language below in his review:
- Co-ordinate the arrangement of face to face meeting venues along with related logistics with ICANN and other third parties where appropriate - Arrange ICG member travel, as and when required in conjunction with ICANN - Liaise with ICANN for administrative matters as required by the ICG and Chair
Will that address your concern? I was not sure if we want to mention the support team in this document that refer to overall secretariat function. Is everyone ok to be specific as suggested above?
- Serve as primary media contact point for the ICG fielding enquiries to the chairs and the ICG - Using material prepared by the ICG, undertake public communications functions including dissemination of Press Releases and/or ICG statements as requested by the ICG.
[MB7]As it stands this is confusing (and then contradicted in the next paragraph).
I see your point and agree on your suggest improvement. I think being the contact point does not allow them to speak for the ICG, and any communication that they will disseminate will be as requested by ICG (or its chair’s). That kind of limit their engagement with third parties including the press. - a. On Aug 6, 2014, at 20:52 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Adiel,
Thanks for this. I have made some edits and comments in dropbox and copied in the attachment here.
Best
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: 05 August 2014 21:49 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Dear all,
Attached is a revised version of the document. I have tried to incorporate and consolidate all the comments. I have left out some of the specific references made to tasks/activities in coordination with ICANN staff at this stage as I think we still need to clarifier that aspect and until then we should leave that out of this document. When appointed if we want something to be done with ICANN dedicated supporting staff we will instruct them accordingly. Narelle I have also added in the neutrality and independence aspect in the first paragraph of the requirements. PAF, some of your comments are covered by Paul’s so I did not repeat them. In any case if I have left anything out feel free to raise.
Thanks.
- a.
<ICG-Secretariat-v02 MB edits.docx>
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
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
On 14 Aug 2014, at 14:11, Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net> wrote:
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?
My personal view is that that level of independence is not needed. It is the control over the secretariat and its actions that is the important thing. Patrik
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
FWIW, I did not say this explicitly but I support this view of using ICANN. One additional task for ICANN is to fund the whole thing. We do not need bureaucracy. We need to do things the right way. I think a step in the potential direction would be adding too much bureaucracy without gaining much better optics. I also think ICANN has managed the task as a temporary secretariat has worked. Patrik On 14 Aug 2014, at 14:55, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:
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
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
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
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
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions. Thanks, Keith Drazek On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also tend to agree. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:39 AM To: Russ Mundy Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2 +1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions. Thanks, Keith Drazek On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree. Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
I am fine with using ICANN to provide the secretariat function, and have been all along. Item 1. The issue is that we must be satisfied with the written outputs and the performance of any liaison tasks. Within my earshot there has been some concern (indeed annoyance) about the capacity for ICANN staff to represent, or being seen to represent, the outcomes of working groups inaccurately in the past. It is my view that this group has the assertiveness, and this task is sufficiently important, for that not to be a likely outcome. Though it is still possible we may be worn out by the process. Good will has a home in this process, and it is time we injected a bit more. Item 2. Is the intention to still use the RFP document (ie v03) as the job specification? If yes, then parts need to be separated out to remove the selection process etc. Item 3. If ICANN does not manage the acquisition and delivery of this function, then: - there are parts aggregating tasks done by various people as one 'person' apparently who would apply for a role - this could be a service contractor not a person, parts are indistinct - there are personal qualities in there inappropriate for a service RFP/personnel recruitment exercise (have you ever tried to assess an "orderly mind" in a recruitment exercise?) - time has elapsed, this delays us by too much - we have no clear budget, process for issuing etc etc Conclusion: I consider item 3 has too many impracticalities to persist with. Item 2, I am happy to resolve, indeed I tried previously. Item 1 contains its own conclusion. Bike shed. Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
Dear All, The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL. 2014-08-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@accan.org.au>:
I am fine with using ICANN to provide the secretariat function, and have been all along.
Item 1. The issue is that we must be satisfied with the written outputs and the performance of any liaison tasks.
Within my earshot there has been some concern (indeed annoyance) about the capacity for ICANN staff to represent, or being seen to represent, the outcomes of working groups inaccurately in the past.
It is my view that this group has the assertiveness, and this task is sufficiently important, for that not to be a likely outcome. Though it is still possible we may be worn out by the process.
Good will has a home in this process, and it is time we injected a bit more.
Item 2. Is the intention to still use the RFP document (ie v03) as the job specification? If yes, then parts need to be separated out to remove the selection process etc.
Item 3. If ICANN does not manage the acquisition and delivery of this function, then: - there are parts aggregating tasks done by various people as one 'person' apparently who would apply for a role - this could be a service contractor not a person, parts are indistinct - there are personal qualities in there inappropriate for a service RFP/personnel recruitment exercise (have you ever tried to assess an "orderly mind" in a recruitment exercise?) - time has elapsed, this delays us by too much - we have no clear budget, process for issuing etc etc
Conclusion: I consider item 3 has too many impracticalities to persist with. Item 2, I am happy to resolve, indeed I tried previously. Item 1 contains its own conclusion.
Bike shed.
Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, S The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL. 2014-08-15 14:39 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL.
2014-08-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@accan.org.au>:
I am fine with using ICANN to provide the secretariat function, and have been all along.
Item 1. The issue is that we must be satisfied with the written outputs and the performance of any liaison tasks.
Within my earshot there has been some concern (indeed annoyance) about the capacity for ICANN staff to represent, or being seen to represent, the outcomes of working groups inaccurately in the past.
It is my view that this group has the assertiveness, and this task is sufficiently important, for that not to be a likely outcome. Though it is still possible we may be worn out by the process.
Good will has a home in this process, and it is time we injected a bit more.
Item 2. Is the intention to still use the RFP document (ie v03) as the job specification? If yes, then parts need to be separated out to remove the selection process etc.
Item 3. If ICANN does not manage the acquisition and delivery of this function, then: - there are parts aggregating tasks done by various people as one 'person' apparently who would apply for a role - this could be a service contractor not a person, parts are indistinct - there are personal qualities in there inappropriate for a service RFP/personnel recruitment exercise (have you ever tried to assess an "orderly mind" in a recruitment exercise?) - time has elapsed, this delays us by too much - we have no clear budget, process for issuing etc etc
Conclusion: I consider item 3 has too many impracticalities to persist with. Item 2, I am happy to resolve, indeed I tried previously. Item 1 contains its own conclusion.
Bike shed.
Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Sorry the message was transmitted prematurely without being completed I repeat again The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL. I strongly recommend that we use an independent Secretariat Pls allow us not to be much dependent to ICANN regards KAVOUSS . 2014-08-15 14:40 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, S The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL.
2014-08-15 14:39 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL.
2014-08-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@accan.org.au>:
I am fine with using ICANN to provide the secretariat function, and have been all along.
Item 1. The issue is that we must be satisfied with the written outputs and the performance of any liaison tasks.
Within my earshot there has been some concern (indeed annoyance) about the capacity for ICANN staff to represent, or being seen to represent, the outcomes of working groups inaccurately in the past.
It is my view that this group has the assertiveness, and this task is sufficiently important, for that not to be a likely outcome. Though it is still possible we may be worn out by the process.
Good will has a home in this process, and it is time we injected a bit more.
Item 2. Is the intention to still use the RFP document (ie v03) as the job specification? If yes, then parts need to be separated out to remove the selection process etc.
Item 3. If ICANN does not manage the acquisition and delivery of this function, then: - there are parts aggregating tasks done by various people as one 'person' apparently who would apply for a role - this could be a service contractor not a person, parts are indistinct - there are personal qualities in there inappropriate for a service RFP/personnel recruitment exercise (have you ever tried to assess an "orderly mind" in a recruitment exercise?) - time has elapsed, this delays us by too much - we have no clear budget, process for issuing etc etc
Conclusion: I consider item 3 has too many impracticalities to persist with. Item 2, I am happy to resolve, indeed I tried previously. Item 1 contains its own conclusion.
Bike shed.
Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ 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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Kavouss, Let me explain my view a bit more clear way, I hope. I do know the GAC secretariat today works well, but it has been a struggle over a number of years and I think two implementations before it turned out as well as it is today. And GAC still have ICANN support staff for the ICANN relations. I also support independence from ICANN, but I am also trying to be pragmatic and realistic on both how long it would take to get the secretariat in place, what risk it is that it does not turn out well, that we still need good staff at ICANN working on behalf of and with ICG, and finally, that "independence" for me implies the secretariat works on behalf of and on directions from ICG, and only ICG. Because of this, organisational independence from ICANN I see as a requirement that have lower priority than for example control over the actions the secretariat do, and most important is that the secretariat actually works. That what ICG asks for is happening. So no, I do not feel I am specifically attached to the idea that ICANN should run the secretariat. I am though *extremely* concerned over the risk that we for a few months (or even weeks) would have a secretariat that do not work. To the degree I would accept having ICANN continue to run the secretariat for the ICG. As long as the staff we have working for ICG is as independent as they have proven to be so far. The day they step over the doorstep, I promise to be the first one that issue an RFP for a separate organisation. Patrik On 15 Aug 2014, at 14:42, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Sorry the message was transmitted prematurely without being completed I repeat again The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL. I strongly recommend that we use an independent Secretariat Pls allow us not to be much dependent to ICANN regards KAVOUSS .
2014-08-15 14:40 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, S The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL.
2014-08-15 14:39 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, The role of the Secretariat is very imnportant to the extent that it reflect the actual discussion without parphrasing or without modifying the verb, adjectives and so on. I do not understand why some people has such a great attachment to ICANN and piush us even not to think to have an independent secretariat. We GAC people did call for proposal for GAC secretariat, it was not complex nor problematic .WE HAVE IT AND IT WORKS WELL.
2014-08-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@accan.org.au>:
I am fine with using ICANN to provide the secretariat function, and have been all along.
Item 1. The issue is that we must be satisfied with the written outputs and the performance of any liaison tasks.
Within my earshot there has been some concern (indeed annoyance) about the capacity for ICANN staff to represent, or being seen to represent, the outcomes of working groups inaccurately in the past.
It is my view that this group has the assertiveness, and this task is sufficiently important, for that not to be a likely outcome. Though it is still possible we may be worn out by the process.
Good will has a home in this process, and it is time we injected a bit more.
Item 2. Is the intention to still use the RFP document (ie v03) as the job specification? If yes, then parts need to be separated out to remove the selection process etc.
Item 3. If ICANN does not manage the acquisition and delivery of this function, then: - there are parts aggregating tasks done by various people as one 'person' apparently who would apply for a role - this could be a service contractor not a person, parts are indistinct - there are personal qualities in there inappropriate for a service RFP/personnel recruitment exercise (have you ever tried to assess an "orderly mind" in a recruitment exercise?) - time has elapsed, this delays us by too much - we have no clear budget, process for issuing etc etc
Conclusion: I consider item 3 has too many impracticalities to persist with. Item 2, I am happy to resolve, indeed I tried previously. Item 1 contains its own conclusion.
Bike shed.
Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
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
On 15.08.14 14:56 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
... I also support independence from ICANN, but I am also trying to be pragmatic and realistic on both how long it would take to get the secretariat in place, what risk it is that it does not turn out well, that we still need good staff at ICANN working on behalf of and with ICG, and finally, that "independence" for me implies the secretariat works on behalf of and on directions from ICG, and only ICG.
Because of this, organisational independence from ICANN I see as a requirement that have lower priority than for example control over the actions the secretariat do, and most important is that the secretariat actually works. That what ICG asks for is happening.
So no, I do not feel I am specifically attached to the idea that ICANN should run the secretariat.
I am though *extremely* concerned over the risk that we for a few months (or even weeks) would have a secretariat that do not work.
To the degree I would accept having ICANN continue to run the secretariat for the ICG. As long as the staff we have working for ICG is as independent as they have proven to be so far.
I fully agree with Patrik. We need a working secretariat and the current arrangements including the assurances by ICANN are good enough for me. Let's move on! Daniel Rationale: The arrangements we already have are working. ICANN has pledged that they will provide them under full direction of the ICG. Under these arrangements we can ask ICANN at any point to hire temporary contractors for any work we consider to need that kind of independence; we can then also ask to have a say in the selection. I still firmly believe that if we desire more independence than that, the only way is to organise a secretariat that is fully independent from ICANN and takes no funding from ICANN. As long as ICANN funds and contracts there will be no true independence from ICANN. Any efforts at artificially creating a perception of independence will only take time and energy while having no real effect. So the real choice is this: *Either* we take the offer of ICANN Staff under our direction with temporary contractors when needed *or* we organise our own secretariat. If we want to do the latter I suggest we ask another friendly organisation to do this possibly in the manner Hartmut has suggested and we collect funds around the table if this organisation cannot fund it themselves. Strawmen: ISOC, RIRs, some names club. This will not take much more effort than organising the ICANN funded option and provide true independence. Daniel
Agree with Daniel and Patrik. Jon
On Aug 19, 2014, at 5:29 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 15.08.14 14:56 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
... I also support independence from ICANN, but I am also trying to be pragmatic and realistic on both how long it would take to get the secretariat in place, what risk it is that it does not turn out well, that we still need good staff at ICANN working on behalf of and with ICG, and finally, that "independence" for me implies the secretariat works on behalf of and on directions from ICG, and only ICG.
Because of this, organisational independence from ICANN I see as a requirement that have lower priority than for example control over the actions the secretariat do, and most important is that the secretariat actually works. That what ICG asks for is happening.
So no, I do not feel I am specifically attached to the idea that ICANN should run the secretariat.
I am though *extremely* concerned over the risk that we for a few months (or even weeks) would have a secretariat that do not work.
To the degree I would accept having ICANN continue to run the secretariat for the ICG. As long as the staff we have working for ICG is as independent as they have proven to be so far.
I fully agree with Patrik. We need a working secretariat and the current arrangements including the assurances by ICANN are good enough for me.
Let's move on!
Daniel
Rationale:
The arrangements we already have are working. ICANN has pledged that they will provide them under full direction of the ICG. Under these arrangements we can ask ICANN at any point to hire temporary contractors for any work we consider to need that kind of independence; we can then also ask to have a say in the selection.
I still firmly believe that if we desire more independence than that, the only way is to organise a secretariat that is fully independent from ICANN and takes no funding from ICANN. As long as ICANN funds and contracts there will be no true independence from ICANN. Any efforts at artificially creating a perception of independence will only take time and energy while having no real effect.
So the real choice is this:
*Either* we take the offer of ICANN Staff under our direction with temporary contractors when needed *or* we organise our own secretariat.
If we want to do the latter I suggest we ask another friendly organisation to do this possibly in the manner Hartmut has suggested and we collect funds around the table if this organisation cannot fund it themselves. Strawmen: ISOC, RIRs, some names club. This will not take much more effort than organising the ICANN funded option and provide true independence.
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
+1 from me in support of Patrick's and Daniel's comments. Keith Drazek On Aug 19, 2014, at 5:45 AM, "Jon Nevett" <jon@donuts.co> wrote:
Agree with Daniel and Patrik. Jon
On Aug 19, 2014, at 5:29 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 15.08.14 14:56 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
... I also support independence from ICANN, but I am also trying to be pragmatic and realistic on both how long it would take to get the secretariat in place, what risk it is that it does not turn out well, that we still need good staff at ICANN working on behalf of and with ICG, and finally, that "independence" for me implies the secretariat works on behalf of and on directions from ICG, and only ICG.
Because of this, organisational independence from ICANN I see as a requirement that have lower priority than for example control over the actions the secretariat do, and most important is that the secretariat actually works. That what ICG asks for is happening.
So no, I do not feel I am specifically attached to the idea that ICANN should run the secretariat.
I am though *extremely* concerned over the risk that we for a few months (or even weeks) would have a secretariat that do not work.
To the degree I would accept having ICANN continue to run the secretariat for the ICG. As long as the staff we have working for ICG is as independent as they have proven to be so far.
I fully agree with Patrik. We need a working secretariat and the current arrangements including the assurances by ICANN are good enough for me.
Let's move on!
Daniel
Rationale:
The arrangements we already have are working. ICANN has pledged that they will provide them under full direction of the ICG. Under these arrangements we can ask ICANN at any point to hire temporary contractors for any work we consider to need that kind of independence; we can then also ask to have a say in the selection.
I still firmly believe that if we desire more independence than that, the only way is to organise a secretariat that is fully independent from ICANN and takes no funding from ICANN. As long as ICANN funds and contracts there will be no true independence from ICANN. Any efforts at artificially creating a perception of independence will only take time and energy while having no real effect.
So the real choice is this:
*Either* we take the offer of ICANN Staff under our direction with temporary contractors when needed *or* we organise our own secretariat.
If we want to do the latter I suggest we ask another friendly organisation to do this possibly in the manner Hartmut has suggested and we collect funds around the table if this organisation cannot fund it themselves. Strawmen: ISOC, RIRs, some names club. This will not take much more effort than organising the ICANN funded option and provide true independence.
Daniel _______________________________________________ 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
I think we need to have the Secretariat in place in time for our meeting in LA. I hope that Theresa can quickly answer whether that is possible. Russ
FWIW, I do not only support this, I think it would be interesting to know whether we can also have the Secretariat present in L.A., i.e. that we can work with the new secretariat there. I would even be prepared on having, if Theresa acknowledge the RFP process itself is fast enough, as a request on having individuals from the secretariat on site in L.A as part of the RFP. But maybe this is a stretch. Patrik On 19 aug 2014, at 15:48, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
I think we need to have the Secretariat in place in time for our meeting in LA. I hope that Theresa can quickly answer whether that is possible.
Russ
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed: 1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN. 2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do. Which of the two choices above are people supporting? Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so. Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure. Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it. Alissa On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
In my note, I was supporting #1, with the understanding that ICANN has procurement policies and processes that need to be accommodated. Russ On Aug 18, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I prefer #1 as well. But at least the Chair + Vice Chairs should then have a look to the contract. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Russ Housley Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:31 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2 In my note, I was supporting #1, with the understanding that ICANN has procurement policies and processes that need to be accommodated. Russ On Aug 18, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Option #1 would be the best, but my point has been that the MOST important issue is a) control ICG has over the secretariat, b) that the secretariat issue get resolved quickly and put to rest and c) that the individuals doing the work for the secretariat can do their work completely independent of ICANN. If (a), (b) and (c) are impossible with option #1 (which I do _not_ think it is, given what Theresa wrote), we should go for that. Otherwise I can accept option #2 (although (c) of course is MUCH harder in option #2 than option #1). Patrik On 19 aug 2014, at 10:29, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
I prefer #1 as well. But at least the Chair + Vice Chairs should then have a look to the contract.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Russ Housley Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:31 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2
In my note, I was supporting #1, with the understanding that ICANN has procurement policies and processes that need to be accommodated.
Russ
On Aug 18, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I would happily support option 1 I would not support option 2. My feeling is that the discussion so far has been supporting option 1. We too in the ccNSO in ICANN have a secretariat of our choosing, but paid for by ICANN. This has been in place since the ccNSO formed in 2004 and works very well. ICANN board and senior staff understand the need for independence for these staff members. And the ccNSO expressed the same concerns regarding ICANN funding our secretariat in the beginning, we are well over that now. Cheers Keith On 19/08/2014 5:13 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
As I said during the London meeting, the important thing here is perception, and minimising risk of controversy. The ICG members who favour an independent secretariat should remind us that outside of this group, a significant number will feel the same way. For this reason I have to support the proposal for an independent secretariat, even though I would be personally comfortable with either option 1 or 2 below. My concern is timing. If we go with that option, we will have to move quickly. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 3:13 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree on the independent secretariat for the reasons Paul has stated. I have less concern related to timing, however. For me the timing issue has to be resolved by the time we start any receipt or consideration of proposals. At present, the potential for conflict in the Secretarial function is very limited. I agree that we should not waste time in the process, but we should make also sure that we have a thoughtful, fair and transparent process in secretariat selection. There seem to have been questions raised about process on our recent call both in terms of our needs as well as procurement processes which need to be addressed as a first step. Do we even know what our budget is? Finally, are there steps we should take to enhance the independence, at least in terms of reporting related to our function, of those currently supporting us? I also agree that they have been doing a first rate job! Joe On 8/19/2014 5:31 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
As I said during the London meeting, the important thing here is perception, and minimising risk of controversy. The ICG members who favour an independent secretariat should remind us that outside of this group, a significant number will feel the same way.
For this reason I have to support the proposal for an independent secretariat, even though I would be personally comfortable with either option 1 or 2 below.
My concern is timing. If we go with that option, we will have to move quickly.
Paul.
On 19 Aug 2014, at 3:13 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I feel the need for a recap after the last call. My understanding is that we will use ICANN’s standard procurement practices to seek secretariat candidates based on the requires established, and once selected, the secretariat will report directly to the ICG, and only to the ICG, in doing its work. I assume that in this case the selection decision will be made by the ICG (and the ICG alone), from the responses received. Delegation to a subcommittee of the ICG would seem an obvious approach, which I would support. But can we confirm this please. Thanks, On 20 Aug 2014, at 2:05 am, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I agree on the independent secretariat for the reasons Paul has stated. I have less concern related to timing, however. For me the timing issue has to be resolved by the time we start any receipt or consideration of proposals. At present, the potential for conflict in the Secretarial function is very limited. I agree that we should not waste time in the process, but we should make also sure that we have a thoughtful, fair and transparent process in secretariat selection.
There seem to have been questions raised about process on our recent call both in terms of our needs as well as procurement processes which need to be addressed as a first step. Do we even know what our budget is?
Finally, are there steps we should take to enhance the independence, at least in terms of reporting related to our function, of those currently supporting us? I also agree that they have been doing a first rate job!
Joe On 8/19/2014 5:31 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
As I said during the London meeting, the important thing here is perception, and minimising risk of controversy. The ICG members who favour an independent secretariat should remind us that outside of this group, a significant number will feel the same way.
For this reason I have to support the proposal for an independent secretariat, even though I would be personally comfortable with either option 1 or 2 below.
My concern is timing. If we go with that option, we will have to move quickly.
Paul.
On 19 Aug 2014, at 3:13 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 22 aug 2014, at 06:49, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I feel the need for a recap after the last call.
My understanding is that we will use ICANN’s standard procurement practices to seek secretariat candidates based on the requires established, and once selected, the secretariat will report directly to the ICG, and only to the ICG, in doing its work.
I assume that in this case the selection decision will be made by the ICG (and the ICG alone), from the responses received. Delegation to a subcommittee of the ICG would seem an obvious approach, which I would support.
But can we confirm this please.
Let me ask for a clarification. When you say "from the responses received" I presume you imply "from the responses that pass the base criteria ICANN procurement process sets"? I.e. the steps should be as follows (and in many cases "ICG" is in reality "subgroup of ICG", and all ICANN actions below is while keeping ICG, or subgroup of ICG informed: ICG creates a requirements document (the document Adiel is working on) ICANN creates an RFP based on this ICG paper A set of responses are gathered by ICANN ICANN filter out the ones that do not fulfil base requirements ICG do select the secretariat Secretariat reports to ICG Patrik
I support. On 22 Aug 2014, at 4:30 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 22 aug 2014, at 06:49, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I feel the need for a recap after the last call.
My understanding is that we will use ICANN’s standard procurement practices to seek secretariat candidates based on the requires established, and once selected, the secretariat will report directly to the ICG, and only to the ICG, in doing its work.
I assume that in this case the selection decision will be made by the ICG (and the ICG alone), from the responses received. Delegation to a subcommittee of the ICG would seem an obvious approach, which I would support.
But can we confirm this please.
Let me ask for a clarification. When you say "from the responses received" I presume you imply "from the responses that pass the base criteria ICANN procurement process sets"?
I.e. the steps should be as follows (and in many cases "ICG" is in reality "subgroup of ICG", and all ICANN actions below is while keeping ICG, or subgroup of ICG informed:
ICG creates a requirements document (the document Adiel is working on)
ICANN creates an RFP based on this ICG paper
A set of responses are gathered by ICANN
ICANN filter out the ones that do not fulfil base requirements
ICG do select the secretariat
Secretariat reports to ICG
Patrik
+1. Happy to serve on subcommittee to get this done soon. Jon
On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:49 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I support.
On 22 Aug 2014, at 4:30 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 22 aug 2014, at 06:49, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I feel the need for a recap after the last call.
My understanding is that we will use ICANN’s standard procurement practices to seek secretariat candidates based on the requires established, and once selected, the secretariat will report directly to the ICG, and only to the ICG, in doing its work.
I assume that in this case the selection decision will be made by the ICG (and the ICG alone), from the responses received. Delegation to a subcommittee of the ICG would seem an obvious approach, which I would support.
But can we confirm this please.
Let me ask for a clarification. When you say "from the responses received" I presume you imply "from the responses that pass the base criteria ICANN procurement process sets"?
I.e. the steps should be as follows (and in many cases "ICG" is in reality "subgroup of ICG", and all ICANN actions below is while keeping ICG, or subgroup of ICG informed:
ICG creates a requirements document (the document Adiel is working on)
ICANN creates an RFP based on this ICG paper
A set of responses are gathered by ICANN
ICANN filter out the ones that do not fulfil base requirements
ICG do select the secretariat
Secretariat reports to ICG
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On Aug 22, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I feel the need for a recap after the last call.
My understanding is that we will use ICANN’s standard procurement practices to seek secretariat candidates based on the requires established, and once selected, the secretariat will report directly to the ICG, and only to the ICG, in doing its work.
Yes my understanding as well.
I assume that in this case the selection decision will be made by the ICG (and the ICG alone), from the responses received. Delegation to a subcommittee of the ICG would seem an obvious approach, which I would support.
That was one of the suggestion made on the list before which I support. First step is to finalise the RFP, which is on teh way. - a.
On 20 Aug 2014, at 2:05 am, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I agree on the independent secretariat for the reasons Paul has stated. I have less concern related to timing, however. For me the timing issue has to be resolved by the time we start any receipt or consideration of proposals. At present, the potential for conflict in the Secretarial function is very limited. I agree that we should not waste time in the process, but we should make also sure that we have a thoughtful, fair and transparent process in secretariat selection.
There seem to have been questions raised about process on our recent call both in terms of our needs as well as procurement processes which need to be addressed as a first step. Do we even know what our budget is?
Finally, are there steps we should take to enhance the independence, at least in terms of reporting related to our function, of those currently supporting us? I also agree that they have been doing a first rate job!
Joe On 8/19/2014 5:31 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
As I said during the London meeting, the important thing here is perception, and minimising risk of controversy. The ICG members who favour an independent secretariat should remind us that outside of this group, a significant number will feel the same way.
For this reason I have to support the proposal for an independent secretariat, even though I would be personally comfortable with either option 1 or 2 below.
My concern is timing. If we go with that option, we will have to move quickly.
Paul.
On 19 Aug 2014, at 3:13 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I’m a little confused about the options people have been discussing on this thread. It seems to me that there are at least two options that have been discussed:
1) ICANN hires and pays some individuals as contractors to serve as the secretariat for the ICG. These people report directly to the ICG. Their contracts end when the ICG disbands and after that they are no longer paid by ICANN.
2) ICANN allocates some existing ICANN employees to serve as the secretariat (as we have had on a temporary basis with Alice and Ergys). When the ICG disbands, they continue to be employed by ICANN and go back to doing whatever work ICANN wants them to do.
Which of the two choices above are people supporting?
Option #2 makes me quite uncomfortable, as I believe it is inappropriate for an organization whose own department’s oversight (IANA) is the subject of our work to also be in a position where it may be able to influence the messaging or presentation of information about that oversight. It may seem like we would be able to guard against this, but I believe it is actually much harder to do so than people might think, particularly because (1) such influence can be subtle, and (2) we are all busy people volunteering our time, and when we feel pressed for time we will become increasingly interested in relying on paid staff to take on substantive tasks no matter how strong of a promise we make to ourselves now not to do so.
Of course, this is not in any way meant to criticize the work or motivations of Alice and Ergys — I personally think they’ve been doing a great job and I’ve enjoyed working with them. But I think structurally option #2 could present problems for us down the line that we could easily avoid by choosing a different structure.
Option #1 seems ok, although I’m still a little lost as to why contracting with individuals is seen to have such advantages over contracting with a professional firm whose employees’ core competency is providing secretarial services. I don’t see why contracting with a firm needs to be that much more complicated or take that much longer than contracting with individuals, or why the minor amount of extra time it might take is not offset by the advantages of leveraging a firm’s existing skill set and infrastructure for providing what we need. But if the group would prefer to have ICANN contract with individuals, I can live with it.
Alissa
On 8/15/14, 1:59 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Agree.
Joe On 8/14/2014 9:39 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
+1 on this proposal for securing Secretariat functions.
Thanks, Keith Drazek
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
All: It is vital that the secretariat function report directly to the ICG, and Theresa has told us that ICANN is able to support this structure. We are asking ICANN to pay for the secretariat function, so we need to follow their procurement practices. For this reason, I support using ICANN as the contracting entity for the secretariat. I greatly appreciate the information provided by Theresa. Russ 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
participants (16)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Drazek, Keith -
James M. Bladel -
Jon Nevett -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Keith Davidson -
Martin Boyle -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Russ Housley -
Russ Mundy -
WUKnoben