<html>
<body>
I fully support this. Despite how Milton read the proposal, my assumption
was ALWAYS that secondment (under any name) would be how it would be
done.<br><br>
Our NUMBER ONE priority is to ensure a smooth transition and I see
employees (including the manager) being uneasy with the employment terms
(now of in the foreseeable future) as a major way to jeopardize the
reliability of the IANA functions.<br><br>
To do it in the name of some future separation (where the process will
take months or longer to effect) and because ICANN, the holder of the
IANA agreements with the other two communities and which has a HUGE
vested interest in ensuring that registries are satisfied, will
deliberately do harm to IANA would be laughable if it was no so
serious.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 22/06/2016 05:49 PM, Martin Boyle wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Milton,<br><br>
In "The plan was to _<i>transfer</i>_ staff from ICANN to PTI, not
to second them. IANA staff would become part of PTI, not a department of
ICANN," <br>
I accept that it is possible to assume this, but I can't see where we
said this.<br><br>
I've watched this discussion with some bewilderment. It seems to be
way beyond the remit of the CWG to insist that the IANA staff must join
PTI against their will or lose their job.<br><br>
Having been a secondee from one government ministry to another and from
my government to an IGO (the European Commission), in both cases it was
recognised by my employer AND the host organisation that my loyalty was
to the latter for the period of the secondment. My annual review,
for example, was by my line manager in my secondments and was on file as
is with my employer.<br><br>
For separation, I don't see why secondees affect the situation. As
the steward, it would not be in ICANN's interest to undermine the
operator, whoever it is. Staff can still be seconded to the new
operator (but cannot be forced to go - but they can't be forced to stay
with ICANN or PTO, either).<br><br>
Martin Boyle<br><br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
<br><br>
<img src="cid:image001.jpg@01D105C8.15DEB510" width=165 height=23 alt="cid:image001.jpg@01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0">
<br><br>
<br><br>
<b><a href="http://nominet.uk/">nominet.uk</a> </b>DD:
<a href="tel:+44%20(0)1865%20332251">+44 (0)1865 332251</a><br>
<br>
Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United
Kingdom<br><br>
<br>
On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Mueller, Milton L
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<b>From:</b> Guru Acharya
[<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com</a>]
<br><br>
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
<br>
<br>
MM: It doesn’t matter what you have or do not have a problem with. The
goal now is to implement the proposal, not to re-litigate the proposal.
According to the finalized proposal PTI is not a department of ICANN but
an independent legal entity. The plan was to _<i>transfer</i>_ staff from
ICANN to PTI, not to second them. IANA staff would become part of PTI,
not a department of ICANN. <br>
<br>
I think we can all agree that we do not want to see people from ICANN
walking into a door and becoming PTI for a few hours and then walking out
the door and becoming ICANN staff. That is not in line with either the
spirit or the letter of the proposal. As others have noted, there are
loyalty/mission issues with that. It was simply wrong of ICANN to propose
it. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
It does make it weaker by tying PTI staff to ICANN and increasing ICANN –
and the staff-s resisttance to any form of separation. <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" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:vFlxGb5BwC1wrMh3WQSXUUHIgVspyT/fucUgnAuJTIc8wmqm6xoAQvWMDyX+R8lRb5uQBSfZ0i4W+MCna+UmV981SihpSDV6NLzslJjJgCruugtbqk4PcQfHItSIJklzTdo0r52Lubcmvrl/ygTV9rRL13pNf2rtUOi39vhKN5gjfdr0M3TNAnnsvbGO+ic3<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>