[Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Fri Aug 22 04:49:10 UTC 2014

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.  


On 20 Aug 2014, at 2:05 am, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at 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 at 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 at 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 at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I fully support this approach for the Secretariat.  Russ
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:38 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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