Hi everyone,
I also am very keen to discuss on the basis of Greg’s comments.
Like many ccTLDs, Afnic was created as a separate entity separated from a larger, well known Academic institution. The retention challenge was certainly even higher at that point because there was no guarantee on funding or even on the viability of the domain business at that point.
From that experience, I can share some potential ideas for consideration to balance retention and independence, both in the short and long term for icann :
- Ensuring that benefits, career perspectives and all other aspects of Icann HR policies remain accessible to PTI employees should be starting point. I’m sure lawyers can find a way to address this requirement.
- Secondment could be used for existing Icann employees, for a duration of 3 year maximum, in order to provide continuity
- New hires could be directly employed by PTI (with the same benefits as other staff) so that, over time, a smooth transition can be achieved.
I am confident that an adequate balance can be found, adequately addressing the CWG requirements as well as legitimate staff expectations.
Best
Mathieu
De : cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de kurt@kjpritz.com
Envoyé : jeudi 16 juin 2016 06:15
À : Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson
Cc : cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Objet : Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
Hi Everyone:
I thought that Greg's comments to the ICANN Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations merited a response focusing some operational aspects of the plan.
To make it easier to read, I pasted Greg's comments into the document itself in italics and then followed those comments with my own.
Thanks for taking the time to read these. i hope they are helpful to your thinking.
Regards,
Kurt