<div dir="ltr">Hi Milton,<div><br></div><div>While I wholeheartedly support strong separability, I personally don't see a problem with secondment of ICANN staff to PTI. From what I remember, PTI's staff does not have any role to play in the separation process committees such as SIFR and SCWG. However, I would indeed concur with you in case any PTI staff (including the PTI President) are conceptualised to be a part of SIFR and SCWG.</div><div><br></div><div>In this era of business process outsourcing where every resource is treated as a service (think IaaS, PaaS), I do not see why any restrictions should be placed on where and how PTI (or any other future IFO) outsources its resources including staffing. Additionally, if secondment addresses legitimate staff concerns and makes the transition smoother, it should be welcomed.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, I also wish to note that the current separation process is undoubtedly skewed in favour of a very weak form of separability by giving the board the option to reject it twice. However, I don't think secondment of ICANN staff to PTI has a role in making separability any weaker.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Guru</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-6304164943646642511__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
</span><span class="">Just thinking aloud here, assuming staff of PTI are handled by secondment, what part of the CWG proposal will that go against?
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: The CWG proposal calls for legal separation of names PTI and ICANN, Inc. and the creation of a whole new California corporation with its own board. If ICANN
simply hires and seconds all of PTI staff then PTI is not a separate, independent subsidiary but merely a department of ICANN.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How will that hinder the community from exercising any of the community powers?
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: the community powers relevant to separation of names IANA functions from ICANN’s PTI are already so weak as to be ineffectual, imho, but PTI staffing does
not worsen this situation<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What impact will it have in the operation of the functions?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: potentially, quite a bit. It is, as we have already discussed, a question of to whom the staff is loyal to or accountable to. How independent is PTI in its
implementation, or how mixed up are they in the policy process? The closer they are to ICANN the greater the dangers here.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>