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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 22 Jun 2016 19:31, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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)

SO: The 2 points above resonates with what I think should be the case.
First I don't think we should hardcode how PTI staffing is done. The PTI
boss (called CEO?) in sync with PTI board should be the ones to freely
determine their staffing formalities post-implementation

> 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).

SO: I really think these are operational  issues that can be within the
remit of PTI leadership post-implementation but yes things can flow as you
proposed above. Though I think PTI paying the seconded staff directly or
ICANN paying the seconded staff directly (without transferring physical
cash to PTI) may be neater.

> iv) there is a commitment (as there is already) for ICANN to pay whatever
is
> approved through the PTI Budget process.
>

SO: Here is what we need to ensure we have an hardcoding upon (which I
believe is the case already)

Regards

> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/84f40513/attachment.html>