[Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2

Fri Aug 15 10:11:20 UTC 2014

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 at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 7:00 PM
> To: internal-cg at 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 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