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

[Greg Shatan]

I am sending my earlier comments in a PDF, since my original document was
in Word, and some might prefer this format (or have technical difficulties
with the other).

Greg

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:50 PM, <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

> 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/e05027dd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Microsoft Word - PTI Rationale with GSS Comments (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 82373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160617/e05027dd/MicrosoftWord-PTIRationalewithGSSComments1-0001.pdf>