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

[Martin Boyle]

Milton,

In "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 accept that it is possible to assume this, but I can't see where we said this.

I've watched this discussion with some bewilderment.  It seems to be way beyond the remit of the CWG to insist that the IANA staff must join PTI against their will or lose their job.

Having been a secondee from one government ministry to another and from my government to an IGO (the European Commission), in both cases it was recognised by my employer AND the host organisation that my loyalty was to the latter for the period of the secondment.  My annual review, for example, was by my line manager in my secondments and was on file as is with my employer.

For separation, I don't see why secondees affect the situation.  As the steward, it would not be in ICANN's interest to undermine the operator, whoever it is.  Staff can still be seconded to the new operator (but cannot be forced to go - but they can't be forced to stay with ICANN or PTO, either).

Martin Boyle

Sent from my iPhone

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0]

nominet.uk<http://nominet.uk/>    DD: +44 (0)1865 332251<tel:+44%20(0)1865%20332251>
Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom


On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:



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.
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/fef75e8a/attachment-0001.html>