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

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

May I propose a compromise.

i) Staff currently employed by ICANN can be seconded to PTI
ii) PTI is free (should the Board of PTI so decide) to directly employ any
member of staff it determines appropriate (yes the Board has 3 ICANN Staff and
only 2 independents) 
iii) The money flow.....  ICANN pays PTI the approved budget and PTI pays ICANN
for seconded staff and also for operational expenses (shared services, travel,
expenses for operating).
iv) there is a commitment (as there is already) for ICANN to pay whatever is
approved through the PTI Budget process.

The probability of separation from ICANN is very remote, but that is also a good
thing as it will demonstrate that ICANN is doing a good job.  If it is not there
are many steps before the nuclear option (which is the deterrent folks will
never use (I hope!!.....) !  

best

Paul

Quoting Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>:

> 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
> >
> >
>