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

[Mueller, Milton L]

From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]

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

MM: It doesn’t matter what you have or do not have a problem with. The goal now is to implement the proposal, not to re-litigate the proposal. According to the finalized proposal PTI is not a department of ICANN but an independent legal entity. The plan was to _transfer_ staff from ICANN to PTI, not to second them. IANA staff would become part of PTI, not a department of ICANN.

I think we can all agree that we do not want to see people from ICANN walking into a door and becoming PTI for a few hours and then walking out the door and becoming ICANN staff. That is not in line with either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. As others have noted, there are loyalty/mission issues with that. It was simply wrong of ICANN to propose it.

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.

It does make it weaker by tying PTI staff to ICANN and increasing ICANN – and the staff-s resistance to any form of separation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160622/67b2b13d/attachment-0001.html>