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) 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). iv) there is a commitment (as there is already) for ICANN to pay whatever is approved through the PTI Budget process. 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@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@gatech.edu> wrote:
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@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 ICANNâs 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship