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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hello, I agree most part of the 3 key points listed by Mathieu expect that on the last point; i don't think new staff specifically recruited for PTI must necessarily have same benefit as other staff; theirs may be more or less, what may be important is for them to be aware of the benefits before applying and finally being employed. IMO ensuring that current/existing staff that get seconded from ICANN to PTI receives their present benefits is what is most important. Regards On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

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

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

All,

My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

*From:* Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:05 *To:* iotf@icann.org *Subject:* [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

*Yuko Green*

Strategic Programs Manager

Global Domains Division

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693

Mobile: +1 310 745 1517

E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org

www.icann.org

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Thanks Kurt for spending considerable time and thought and undoubtedly using your experience at ICANN to respond to Greg’s comments. I think the format you created would be an easy one to using for the IOTF to use in discussing the rationale document before making some recommendations to the full CWG. In the IOTF call yesterday I sensed that there was reasonably strong support for making the secondment approach work; in one case there was just support for applying it in the near term and not long term but it appeared that everyone wants to ensure the stability and continuity of the IANA personnel. If I am correct on this. Then I think we can simplify the process of reviewing and dealing with the issues that were raised by Greg and responded to by Kurt. A lot of the issues commented on are interesting and probably even valid points but they really are non-impactful regarding the secondment approach; in other words, if we want to make the secondment approach work, we don’t need to do anything in response to the comments. In my opinion, we could set those comments aside and focus on the ones that might have an impact and figure out ways to deal with the issues if needed. So the first step would be to identify the impactful issues and then focus on them. Maybe Greg and Kurt together could take a first stab at doing that. Of course, the most important task that is needed is to ensure that the secondment approach satisfies the recommendations of the CWG so we definitely make sure that happens but I would like to think that that is a solvable problem. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM To: Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: 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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693<tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517<tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517> E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Christopher, With the understanding that my view and yours probably is very similar on this, I am curious as to what approach you think Greg was advocating. I didn't see his comments as suggesting a particular solution as much as he was raising some issues that should be dealt with so that we ensure that the CWG recommendations can be met by the secondment approach. Moreover, I thought that Kurt made a good start and dealing with those issues. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:51 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA; iotf@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Importance: High Good evening: At this late stage in the CWG debate, suffice it to say that in the light of my earlier comments on this matter, I support Kurt's approach and I do not support - indeed, I would be against - Greg's approach. More generally, I am well aware that a discussion of the nuances of this issue could occupy several hours and many pages, that which we do not have time for now. Further discussion should be informed by a thorough knowledge of international best practice and of Californian and US labour laws. Which I myself and perhaps others do not have. May I also highlight one of Kurt's comments:

"If this happens, we have bigger problems than terminating secondments. In this scenario, ICANN and PTI have failed in some way and the ICANN formed in 1998 is broken apart"

Indeed. The multiple international parties to the 1998 creation of ICANN would not stand idly by in such an eventuality. Much else would come back onto the table, potentially of much greater significance than 'separation' or not. Currently we benefit from the relative success, to date, of the multistakeholder model such that the International Governmental alternative is dormant. Separation would no doubt awake the alternative. CW On 16 Jun 2016, at 06:15, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: 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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693<tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517<tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517> E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <PTI Rationale with GSS Comments(kp).docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Avri is exactly right here. We are not redesigning PTI to suit ICANN's needs or even the IANA employees needs, as important as those are. We are _implementing_ a design that was laboriously constructed and vetted. If some kind of transitional arrangement is needed, as Mathieu suggested based on actual experience with a separation, it is acceptable, but as Avri stated permanent secondment is a major deviation from the proposal and thus is not acceptable.

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Hi,

Predictions of how horrible things might be at a possible separation time aside, the most important consideration is satisfying the conditions of the CWG proposal for separability. Secondment strikes many as being outside the spirit of our recommendations. But in consideration of existing employee sentiments, continuity and stability it can be understood as a transition measure; albeit a slow one and not the flag day sort of transition proposal many count on and believe in. But to mandate that secondment be permanent for all future employees flies in the face of the recommendation for separability and makes a farce of it.

I have also questioned the secondment of the PTI Manager/President role. Even in the first instance I do not believe this appropriate given the possibility for conflict of interest should there be a divergence between the PTI Board and ICANN on issues. The President of PTI needs to be fully committed to the PTI and not constrained by ICANN as employer.

avri

On 16-Jun-16 14:50, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

...

Good evening:

At this late stage in the CWG debate, suffice it to say that in the light of my earlier comments on this matter, I support Kurt's approach and I do not support - indeed, I would be against - Greg's approach.

More generally, I am well aware that a discussion of the nuances of this issue could occupy several hours and many pages, that which we do not have time for now. Further discussion should be informed by a thorough knowledge of international best practice and of Californian and US labour laws. Which I myself and perhaps others do not have.

May I also highlight one of Kurt's comments:

/> "If this happens, we have bigger problems than terminating secondments. In this scenario, ICANN and PTI have failed in some way and the ICANN formed in 1998 is broken apart"/

Indeed. The multiple international parties to the 1998 creation of ICANN would not stand idly by in such an eventuality. Much else would come back onto the table, potentially of much greater significance than 'separation' or not.

Currently we benefit from the relative success, to date, of the multistakeholder model such that the International Governmental alternative is dormant. Separation would no doubt awake the alternative.

CW

On 16 Jun 2016, at 06:15, kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:

...

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

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>

All,

My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:

All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

*From:*Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>] *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:05 *To:* iotf@icann.org <mailto:iotf@icann.org> *Subject:* [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

*Yuko Green*

Strategic Programs Manager

Global Domains Division

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 <tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693>

Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 <tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517>

E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>

www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG- Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

<PTI Rationale with GSS

Comments(kp).docx>_______________________________________________

...

CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Chuck, Kurt I think Kurt’s approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model. I really don’t like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people’s attention is occupied by other things. Kurt says: “On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.” This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN’s mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN’s mission. We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture. By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: 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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693<tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517<tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517> E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hello, Just thinking aloud here, assuming staff of PTI are handled by secondment, what part of the CWG proposal will that go against? How will that hinder the community from exercising any of the community powers? What impact will it have in the operation of the functions? Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 17 Jun 2016 3:06 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

In my opinion, this is the kind of discussion that is needed. I sincerely wish we could have had it a couple months ago but it is what it is. I am looking forward to how staff responds to the issues that have been raised and encourage all of us to work collaboratively to address the issues and facilitate a timely and smooth transition.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2016 9:46 AM *To:* kurt@kjpritz.com; Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Chuck, Kurt

I think Kurt’s approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model.

I really don’t like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people’s attention is occupied by other things.

Kurt says:

“On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.”

This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN’s mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN’s mission.

We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture.

By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent.

--MM

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *kurt@kjpritz.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson@afilias.info> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* 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

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

All,

My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

*From:* Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:05 *To:* iotf@icann.org *Subject:* [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

*Yuko Green*

Strategic Programs Manager

Global Domains Division

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693

Mobile: +1 310 745 1517

E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org

www.icann.org

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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 ICANN’s 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

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 22 Jun 2016 19:31, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:

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)

SO: The 2 points above resonates with what I think should be the case. First I don't think we should hardcode how PTI staffing is done. The PTI boss (called CEO?) in sync with PTI board should be the ones to freely determine their staffing formalities post-implementation

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).

SO: I really think these are operational issues that can be within the remit of PTI leadership post-implementation but yes things can flow as you proposed above. Though I think PTI paying the seconded staff directly or ICANN paying the seconded staff directly (without transferring physical cash to PTI) may be neater.

iv) there is a commitment (as there is already) for ICANN to pay whatever is approved through the PTI Budget process.

SO: Here is what we need to ensure we have an hardcoding upon (which I believe is the case already) Regards

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 ICANN’s 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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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

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@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@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

+1 CW On 23 Jun 2016, at 00:01, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

I fully support this. Despite how Milton read the proposal, my assumption was ALWAYS that secondment (under any name) would be how it would be done.

Our NUMBER ONE priority is to ensure a smooth transition and I see employees (including the manager) being uneasy with the employment terms (now or in the foreseeable future) as a major way to jeopardize the reliability of the IANA functions.

To do it in the name of some future separation (where the process will take months or longer to effect) and because ICANN, the holder of the IANA agreements with the other two communities and which has a HUGE vested interest in ensuring that registries are satisfied, will deliberately do harm to IANA would be laughable if it was no so serious.

Alan

At 22/06/2016 05:49 PM, Martin Boyle 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

nominet.uk DD: +44 (0)1865 332251

Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom

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

...

From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@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 resisttance to any form of separation. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:vFlxGb5BwC1wrMh3WQSXUUHIgVspyT/fucUgnAuJTIc8wmqm6xoAQvWMDyX+R8lRb5uQBSfZ0i4W+MCna+UmV981SihpSDV6NLzslJjJgCruugtbqk4PcQfHItSIJklzTdo0r52Lubcmvrl/ygTV9rRL13pNf2rtUOi39vhKN5gjfdr0M3TNAnnsvbGO+ic3

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Seun: We can instantiate PTI with secondment employees to move forward with the transition but all PTI new employees after this need to be employees of PTI. -ed On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:15 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

Just thinking aloud here, assuming staff of PTI are handled by secondment, what part of the CWG proposal will that go against? How will that hinder the community from exercising any of the community powers? What impact will it have in the operation of the functions?

Regards

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 17 Jun 2016 3:06 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

...

In my opinion, this is the kind of discussion that is needed. I sincerely wish we could have had it a couple months ago but it is what it is. I am looking forward to how staff responds to the issues that have been raised and encourage all of us to work collaboratively to address the issues and facilitate a timely and smooth transition.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2016 9:46 AM *To:* kurt@kjpritz.com; Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Chuck, Kurt

I think Kurt’s approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model.

I really don’t like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people’s attention is occupied by other things.

Kurt says:

“On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.”

This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN’s mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN’s mission.

We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture.

By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent.

--MM

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *kurt@kjpritz.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson@afilias.info> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* 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

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

All,

My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

*From:* Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:05 *To:* iotf@icann.org *Subject:* [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

*Yuko Green*

Strategic Programs Manager

Global Domains Division

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693

Mobile: +1 310 745 1517

E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org

www.icann.org

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Yes I think that we need to recognise that much of the the community largely felt like we compromised (Albeit an acceptable one) in the level of separability and any further challenges to that principle will really cause problems. I have yet to see a reason from ICANN staff as to why the secondment is required rather than preferable, at one stage a legal memo was in the works but I don’t believe that ever materialised. -James From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday 17 June 2016 at 15:51 To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, "kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations I agree with Milton on this. Potential separation of PTI from ICANN was a critical issue for the CWG. If the implementation of that principle dilutes or diverges from what was agreed upon it will not only fail to realize the consensus plan but will likely be viewed as a “bait-and-switch” that calls into question the integrity and reliability of the entire implementation process. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 9:46 AM To: kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>; Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Chuck, Kurt I think Kurt’s approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model. I really don’t like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people’s attention is occupied by other things. Kurt says: “On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.” This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN’s mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN’s mission. We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture. By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent. --MM From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: 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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693<tel:%2B1%20310%20578%208693> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517<tel:%2B1%20310%20745%201517> E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4604/12384 - Release Date: 06/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

My comments to Milton's email below in his own interlineating style. Best regards, Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Date: 6/17/16 6:45 am To: "kurt@kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Chuck, Kurt I think Kurt's approach to the separation is a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model. Kurt: It is not an undoing at all. This is discussion on how to staff the wholly owned subsidiary. It seems to me, the PTI Board can staff the function in any manner they choose so long as it works towards the success of the new organization. Just like any other Corporation, they can hire termps, second people from other organizations, sign staff to fixed term contracts, outsource the work, and so on. Staff that is hired by thee PTI may seek to place conditions on their employment such as, conditions in their employment contracts or even secondment from their existing employer. These staffing choices in no way upsets the creation of a wholly owned affiliate as required by the final report. However, this is a legalistic sort of rationale that I avoided making in my earlier comment. The rationale provided in my earlier comment was for a staffing mechanism that was based on ensuring the ongoing success of the organization by energizing and empowering the existing, successful staff, while maintaining the community proposed model. I really don't like the way our hard-won reforms are being undone while people's attention is occupied by other things. Kurt says: “On a more basic issue, I see no daylight between the loyalty to performing the IANA function and working toward the ICANN mission. They were inextricably bound up at the formation of ICANN. Every organization has some tension between the executive/Board and the operating entities underneath. But I see the mission of PTI and ICANN more aligned than any other combination of PTI and some other organization.” This comment makes me wonder where Kurt was during the extensive discussion and debate over the need to create PTI. He is also wrong about ICANN's mission, which was redefined precisely to make it clear that the IFO is a contracted function and not a core part of ICANN's mission. Kurt: ICANN's mission first and foremost is to actively facilitate a stable Domain Name System. I don't see how that happens without a smoothly running IANA function. In any case, I cannot think of a case where a parent company's mission is to not facilitate the success of its affiliates. (I was an active participant in the working group, offered my opinion at public ICANN meetings, and wrote a fairly extensive pair of proposals with rationale for the transition model that I submitted during the comment period.) We have agreed as part of the transition that it is important to separate the policy making entity from the implementation entity. Some of us argued that IANA functions should be divested from ICANN altogether. ICANN itself of course wanted to retain a perpetual monopoly on IANA functions. The PTI arrangement was a compromise between those two positions. It is unseemly to try to unwind that compromise at this juncture. Kurt: Why are you still arguing that IANA should be divested from ICANN, which would be a very radical undoing of the whole PTI model? This comment makes me wonder where Milton was during the extensive discuss and debate over the need to create PTI. By undermining the separation of ICANN and IANA in this way, we are also playing into the hands of those in the U.S. Congress who would call for a delay (which would probably be permanent) in the implementation of the transition. This is true because you are increasing the level of dissatisfaction with the proposed reforms and providing another excuse for people to claim that ICANN cannot be trusted to become independent. Kurt: I believe this email you have written (and the ones surely to follow) is the most damaging as it raises the spectre that we are re-litigating the proposed and accepted model. The ICANN staff proposal, Greg Shatan's comments, other comments, and my comments were about making sure the staffing of PTI was done in a legal way, compliant with the proposal, that worked to ensure PTI's ongoing success. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:15 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: 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 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 6/13/16 1:10 pm To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> All, My thoughts on the rationale explanation are on the attached document as marginal comments. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Full support for going ahead asap. Lise From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 15 June 2016 09:36 To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: 'Maher, David' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Chuck, Thank-you. Lise and I had talked about getting this dealt as an instruction coming out of the next CWG meeting. However, I take your point that it would be good to get it answered in time for the meeting if possible. Are there any objections to referring this to Sidley immediately? Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 14 June 2016 01:10 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Maher, David <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Jonathan, Please note the following input I received on this from David Maher in the RySG: "In the Sidley draft legal memo regarding PTI and ICANN (April 18, 2015), they say: "This will ensure that the IANA naming functions is both functionally and legally "ring fenced" from the ICANN entity." The proposed secondment of virtually all PTI personnel from ICANN appears to me to pose a legal risk that PTI would not be considered a separate corporation under California law. I suggest that Sidley be asked to look into this. " As David suggests, I think it would be very good if the client committee requested Sidley to look into this as soon as possible so that we could have their response prior to our next CWG meeting. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:16 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

Agree - David raises an important point. On 6/15/2016 4:06 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:

Full support for going ahead asap.

Lise

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* 15 June 2016 09:36 *To:* 'Gomes, Chuck'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* 'Maher, David' *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Chuck,

Thank-you. Lise and I had talked about getting this dealt as an instruction coming out of the next CWG meeting.

However, I take your point that it would be good to get it answered in time for the meeting if possible.

Are there any objections to referring this to Sidley immediately?

Jonathan

*From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* 14 June 2016 01:10 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* Maher, David <dmaher@pir.org <mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Jonathan,

Please note the following input I received on this from David Maher in the RySG:

“In the Sidley draft legal memo regarding PTI and ICANN (April 18, 2015), they say:

“This will ensure that the IANA naming functions is both functionally and legally “ring fenced” from the ICANN entity.”

The proposed secondment of virtually all PTI personnel from ICANN appears to me to pose a legal risk that PTI would not be considered a separate corporation under California law. I suggest that Sidley be asked to look into this. ”

As David suggests, I think it would be very good if the client committee requested Sidley to look into this as soon as possible so that we could have their response prior to our next CWG meeting.

Chuck

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 1:16 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

All,

FYI.

Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item.

Jonathan

*From:*Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:05 *To:* iotf@icann.org <mailto:iotf@icann.org> *Subject:* [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

Dear members of the IOTF,

Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have.

Regards,

*Yuko Green*

Strategic Programs Manager

Global Domains Division

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693

Mobile: +1 310 745 1517

E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>

www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987