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

Fri Jun 17 16:35:33 UTC 2016

All,

In connection with this issue, it was most recently discussed at the IOTF call this week and then of course on the CWG call yesterday.

However, it’s clear that there community concerns date back to Marrakech when the prospect of secondment was first presented by ICANN’s implementation staff.

Now, the objective of having us (the CWG / IOTF) closely involved with the implementation is to ensure that the implementation is indeed consistent with the proposal.

ICANN staff were present on both of the recent IOTF and CWG calls and the staff team included Akram Atallah who is, to the best of my knowledge, ultimately responsible for the implementation.

I had the opportunity to talk with Akram today in order to follow-up after yesterday’s CWG meeting. My understanding from the conversation with Akram is that the implementation staff have clearly heard the concerns raised and will work to address these.

Lise and I have also had the opportunity to talk and we anticipate that we will see a revision of ICANN’s original “total secondment” proposal shortly and that it will respond to concerns raised to date.

So, while we are not clear on exactly how the proposed implementation will be modified with regard to the staffing of PTI, we are clear that the concerns raised have been heard and a revision will be forthcoming shortly. I trust that’s a helpful update.

Thank-you for your attention on this key point.

Jonathan

From: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net] 
Sent: 17 June 2016 16:17
To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; kurt at kjpritz.com; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Yes I think that we need to recognise that much of the the community largely felt like we compromised (Albeit an acceptable one) in the level of separability and any further challenges to that principle will really cause problems. I have yet to see a reason from ICANN staff as to why the secondment is required rather than preferable, at one stage a legal memo was in the works but I don’t believe that ever materialised.

-James

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com> >
Date: Friday 17 June 2016 at 15:51
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >, "kurt at kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com> " <kurt at kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com> >, 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> " <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

I agree with Milton on this.

Potential separation of PTI from ICANN was a critical issue for the CWG. If the implementation of that principle dilutes or diverges from what was agreed upon it will not only fail to realize  the consensus plan but will likely be viewed as a “bait-and-switch” that calls into question the integrity and reliability of the entire implementation process.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com> ; Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> 
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4604/12384 - Release Date: 06/08/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160617/5e34d33b/attachment-0001.html>