<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 22 Jun 2016 19:31, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <<a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> May I propose a compromise.<br>
><br>
> i) Staff currently employed by ICANN can be seconded to PTI<br>
> ii) PTI is free (should the Board of PTI so decide) to directly employ any<br>
> member of staff it determines appropriate (yes the Board has 3 ICANN Staff and<br>
> only 2 independents)</p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: The 2 points above resonates with what I think should be the case. First I don't think we should hardcode how PTI staffing is done. The PTI boss (called CEO?) in sync with PTI board should be the ones to freely determine their staffing formalities post-implementation<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> iii) The money flow..... ICANN pays PTI the approved budget and PTI pays ICANN<br>
> for seconded staff and also for operational expenses (shared services, travel,<br>
> expenses for operating).</p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: I really think these are operational issues that can be within the remit of PTI leadership post-implementation but yes things can flow as you proposed above. Though I think PTI paying the seconded staff directly or ICANN paying the seconded staff directly (without transferring physical cash to PTI) may be neater.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> iv) there is a commitment (as there is already) for ICANN to pay whatever is<br>
> approved through the PTI Budget process.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Here is what we need to ensure we have an hardcoding upon (which I believe is the case already)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> The probability of separation from ICANN is very remote, but that is also a good<br>
> thing as it will demonstrate that ICANN is doing a good job. If it is not there<br>
> are many steps before the nuclear option (which is the deterrent folks will<br>
> never use (I hope!!.....) !<br>
><br>
> best<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> Quoting Guru Acharya <<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
><br>
> > Hi Milton,<br>
> ><br>
> > While I wholeheartedly support strong separability, I personally don't see<br>
> > a problem with secondment of ICANN staff to PTI. From what I remember,<br>
> > PTI's staff does not have any role to play in the separation process<br>
> > committees such as SIFR and SCWG. However, I would indeed concur with you<br>
> > in case any PTI staff (including the PTI President) are conceptualised to<br>
> > be a part of SIFR and SCWG.<br>
> ><br>
> > In this era of business process outsourcing where every resource is treated<br>
> > as a service (think IaaS, PaaS), I do not see why any restrictions should<br>
> > be placed on where and how PTI (or any other future IFO) outsources its<br>
> > resources including staffing. Additionally, if secondment addresses<br>
> > legitimate staff concerns and makes the transition smoother, it should be<br>
> > welcomed.<br>
> ><br>
> > That said, I also wish to note that the current separation process is<br>
> > undoubtedly skewed in favour of a very weak form of separability by giving<br>
> > the board the option to reject it twice. However, I don't think secondment<br>
> > of ICANN staff to PTI has a role in making separability any weaker.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > Guru<br>
> ><br>
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> > > Just thinking aloud here, assuming staff of PTI are handled by secondment,<br>
> > > what part of the CWG proposal will that go against?<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > MM: The CWG proposal calls for legal separation of names PTI and ICANN,<br>
> > > Inc. and the creation of a whole new California corporation with its own<br>
> > > board. If ICANN simply hires and seconds all of PTI staff then PTI is not<br>
> > a<br>
> > > separate, independent subsidiary but merely a department of ICANN.<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > How will that hinder the community from exercising any of the community<br>
> > > powers?<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > MM: the community powers relevant to separation of names IANA functions<br>
> > > from ICANN’s PTI are already so weak as to be ineffectual, imho, but PTI<br>
> > > staffing does not worsen this situation<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > What impact will it have in the operation of the functions?<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > MM: potentially, quite a bit. It is, as we have already discussed, a<br>
> > > question of to whom the staff is loyal to or accountable to. How<br>
> > > independent is PTI in its implementation, or how mixed up are they in the<br>
> > > policy process? The closer they are to ICANN the greater the dangers here.<br>
> > ><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</p>