Re: [IOTF] [CWG-Stewardship] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
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 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> 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 <PTI Rationale with GSS Comments(kp).docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
This is a good example of what I said in my prior message. Wilkinson opposed the separation of the IFO from ICANN all during the transition process, and has a view that the IANA functions are a single set of functions that can never be separated. So of course he supports Kurt's view, because Kurt's view is inconsistent with the CWG proposal's objective of legally separating ICANN from IANA --MM 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 <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; 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
participants (3)
-
Christopher Wilkinson -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mueller, Milton L