Strongly agree with Carlos – GDD should not be seconding employees to PTI

It undermines the whole rationale for separation



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:41 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

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 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

To:     [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>







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:  [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>



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