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

[Guru Acharya]

Hi Milton,

While I wholeheartedly support strong separability, I personally don't see
a problem with secondment of ICANN staff to PTI. From what I remember,
PTI's staff does not have any role to play in the separation process
committees such as SIFR and SCWG. However, I would indeed concur with you
in case any PTI staff (including the PTI President) are conceptualised to
be a part of SIFR and SCWG.

In this era of business process outsourcing where every resource is treated
as a service (think IaaS, PaaS), I do not see why any restrictions should
be placed on where and how PTI (or any other future IFO) outsources its
resources including staffing. Additionally, if secondment addresses
legitimate staff concerns and makes the transition smoother, it should be
welcomed.

That said, I also wish to note that the current separation process is
undoubtedly skewed in favour of a very weak form of separability by giving
the board the option to reject it twice. However, I don't think secondment
of ICANN staff to PTI has a role in making separability any weaker.

Regards,
Guru

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> Just thinking aloud here, assuming staff of PTI are handled by secondment,
> what part of the CWG proposal will that go against?
>
>
>
> MM: The CWG proposal calls for legal separation of names PTI and ICANN,
> Inc. and the creation of a whole new California corporation with its own
> board. If ICANN simply hires and seconds all of PTI staff then PTI is not a
> separate, independent subsidiary but merely a department of ICANN.
>
>
>
> How will that hinder the community from exercising any of the community
> powers?
>
>
>
> MM: the community powers relevant to separation of names IANA functions
> from ICANN’s PTI are already so weak as to be ineffectual, imho, but PTI
> staffing does not worsen this situation
>
>
>
> What impact will it have in the operation of the functions?
>
>
>
> MM: potentially, quite a bit. It is, as we have already discussed, a
> question of to whom the staff is loyal to or accountable to. How
> independent is PTI in its implementation, or how mixed up are they in the
> policy process? The closer they are to ICANN the greater the dangers here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/0164b339/attachment.html>