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

[kurt at kjpritz.com]

Comments in line below.
 
Kurt
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Date: 6/22/16 12:10 pm
To: "Guru Acharya" <gurcharya at gmail.com>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

   
  
    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. 
  Kurt: Milton, I think you should be approaching this discussion in a more collegial manner in order to better understand Guru's thinking. When I read his email, I took it to mean that Guru "doesn't see a problem, i.e.,  a problem that secondment clashes with the proposal." I did not read that Guru was trying to upset the proposal.  Secondment is a transfer, although as Greg pointed out, generally of a temporary term. I don't think that's necessarily a bar to a similar mechanism. 
 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. 
  Kurt: Milton, I think you have resorted to unneeded and unhelpful hyperbole here. Even critics of secondment aren't picturing the sort of revolving door you depict. I see 3-5 year contracts. This is the length (or longer) of many employment contracts so, in a sense, a benefit of secondment is that it gives PTI the duty to evaluate a staff member who hasn't moved in position for an extended period to determine if s/he should be retained
 
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. 
 



_______________________________________________ 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/e1d95b80/attachment.html>