[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

[Gomes, Chuck]

In my opinion, this is the kind of discussion that is needed.  I sincerely wish we could have had it a couple months ago but it is what it is.  I am looking forward to how staff responds to the issues that have been raised and encourage all of us to work collaboratively to address the issues and facilitate a timely and smooth transition.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 9:46 AM
To: kurt at kjpritz.com; Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Chuck, Kurt
I think Kurt’s approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model.
I really don’t like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people’s attention is occupied by other things.

Kurt says:
“On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.”

This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN’s mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN’s mission.

We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture.

By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent.

--MM


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Hi Everyone:

I thought that Greg's comments to the ICANN Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations merited a response focusing some operational aspects of the plan.

To make it easier to read, I pasted Greg's comments into the document itself in italics and then followed those comments with my own.

Thanks for taking the time to read these. i hope they are helpful to your thinking.

Regards,

Kurt

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm
To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
All,

My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>> wrote:
All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>]
Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05
To: iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>
Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

Yuko Green
Strategic Programs Manager
Global Domains Division
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line:  +1 310 578 8693<tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693>
Mobile: +1 310 745 1517<tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517>
E-mail:  yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160617/774cd66f/attachment-0001.html>