[Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Fri Aug 15 12:56:36 UTC 2014 

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140815/cf10c1d2/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list