[Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Tue Aug 19 10:40:15 UTC 2014

+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 at donuts.co> wrote:

> Agree with Daniel and Patrik. Jon
>> On Aug 19, 2014, at 5:29 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at 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 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list