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

Fri Jun 17 21:50:08 UTC 2016

My comments to Milton's email below in his own interlineating style.

Best regards,

Kurt

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Date: 6/17/16 6:45 am
To: "kurt at kjpritz.com" <kurt at kjpritz.com>, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

  Chuck, Kurt
 I think Kurt's approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model.
 Kurt: It is not an undoing at all. This is discussion on how to staff the wholly owned subsidiary. It seems to me, the PTI Board can staff the function in any manner they choose so long as it works towards the success of the new organization. Just like any other Corporation, they can hire termps, second people from other organizations, sign staff to fixed term contracts, outsource the work, and so on. Staff that is hired by thee PTI may seek to place conditions on their employment such as, conditions in their employment contracts or even secondment from their existing employer. These staffing choices in no way upsets the creation of a wholly owned affiliate as required by the final report. However, this is a legalistic sort of rationale that I avoided making in my earlier comment. The rationale provided in my earlier comment was for a staffing mechanism that was based on ensuring the ongoing success of the organization by energizing and empowering the existing, successful staff, while maintaining the community proposed 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.

 Kurt:  ICANN's mission first and foremost is to actively facilitate a stable Domain Name System. I don't see how that happens without a smoothly running IANA function. In any case, I cannot think of a case where a parent company's mission is to not facilitate the success of its affiliates. (I was an active participant in the working group, offered my opinion at public ICANN meetings, and wrote a fairly extensive pair of proposals with rationale for the transition model that I submitted during the comment period.)
 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. 
  Kurt: Why are you still arguing that IANA should be divested from ICANN, which would be a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model? This comment makes me wonder where Milton was during the extensive discuss and debate over the need to create PTI.
 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.
 Kurt: I believe this email you have written (and the ones surely to follow) is the most damaging as it raises the spectre that we are re-litigating the proposed and accepted model. The ICANN staff proposal, Greg Shatan's comments, other comments, and my comments were about making sure the staffing of PTI was done in a legal way, compliant with the proposal, that worked to ensure PTI's ongoing success.  
 --MM

    From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt at kjpritz.com
 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM
 To: 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

  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>
 Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm
 To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
 Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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> 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] 
 Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05
 To: 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
 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517
 E-mail:  yuko.green at icann.org
 www.icann.org

 _______________________________________________
 CWG-Stewardship mailing list
 CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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/20160617/36c5faa1/attachment.html>