[Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Round #2

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Tue Aug 19 08:29:30 UTC 2014


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 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

_______________________________________________
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