[] IOFT: Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

[Mueller, Milton L]

Strongly agree with Carlos – GDD should not be seconding employees to PTI
It undermines the whole rationale for separation

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:41 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [] IOFT: Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations


+1.  Conflict of interest needs to be more of a focus now.

Stephanie

On 2016-06-16 7:40, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:
Dear Avri,
I think that all PTI staff should AT LEAST be at arms length form GDD, as basic good corporate governance practice. I don´t understand how GDD staff can be the DNS TLD market maker, the RAA/RRA compliance officer (as newly announced), and staff the PTI, all at the same time, without risk of getting into conflicts of interest at some point. But maybe we are talking about a very easy "clerical role" and everything is covered by the new ACCT framework. Maybe you can enlighten me here.
Cheers

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 PM, avri doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Would like to get the NCSG range of views on ICANN's plan/rationale for
secondment of all PTI staff in perpetuity.

The position I have taken personally is:

- I accept that in the initial instance, in consideration of the current
employees and of stability, it makes sense to second those IANA
employees that wish to the PTI.

- with the exception of the PTI managerPresident (if they happen to be
the same person) who I feel might have a conflict of interest in terms
of ICANN the employer and PTI the fiduciary responsibility. I think that
from day 0, this executive level employee should be a PTI employee
reporting solely to the PTI board.

- i think that replacement staff should be employed by PTI and not
ICANN.  there is an issue with having two sort of employees, those
seconded from day 0 and new employees, but as long as staff are treated
well and equitably this shouldn't be a problem.

The CWG proposal did not get into this, though I think many of us
thought at the time that PTI staff would be PTI employees as part of the
separability formula.

avri



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:05:05 +0000
From:   Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>
To:     iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org> <iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>>



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 at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org> <mailto:yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>

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





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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160616/6c02834e/attachment.htm>