[] IOFT: Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

We should consider this discussion at the beginning of the *Staff
Accountability* Segment of *WS2*

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> 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> 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>
> To:     iotf at icann.org <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
>
> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517
>
> E-mail:  yuko.green at icann.org <mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>
>
> 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/a5d02414/attachment.htm>