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

[Seun Ojedeji]

In absolute agreement!

Cheers!

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 22 Jun 2016 10:50 p.m., "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0]
>
>
>
> *nominet.uk* <http://nominet.uk/>    DD: +44 (0)1865 332251
> <+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> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com <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
> 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/20160623/d6a1c3ec/attachment.html>