Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

[Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>]

This could be a good issue for the GNSO review.  However, I think an
amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover
SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather
than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding
"carpet-baggers,"  The inconsistent results that could arise from that can
only be imagined.

Greg

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Thanks Mary for your reply.  I want to add one thing, any such
> consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group
> looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder
> activities.  Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as
> 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs.  Constituencies are approved in a
> process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG
> charter.  I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of
> a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and
> business lines having only a vote in only one SG.  Conveniently this may be
> the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO
> Review.
>
> On a technicality.  we have specific rules about who has standing to
> present cases to the SCI.
>
> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to
> receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational
> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
> Council can make such requests.
>
>
> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the
> staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update.
>
> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template
> to the SCI.  We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C
> had standing.  As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not
> and they needed to bring issues in  through the GNSO Council.  I am sure we
> would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council.
>
> thanks
> avri
>
>
> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote:
>
>  Hello Anne and everyone,
>
>  As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting
> and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by
> their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own
> charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can
> review a group’s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO
> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval
> of an SG’s or C’s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The
> GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards
> to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as
> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation.
> Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member’s
> voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group’s charter, and that
> a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one
> group.
>
>  In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises
> would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for
> and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider
> initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if
> this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each
> group’s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose
> such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do
> as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs
> wish to revise their own charters in the same way).
>
>  As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items
> noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing
> Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the
> GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will
> be on the Council’s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on
> the Council chairs’ determination as to urgency and deadlines of other
> projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda
> for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the
> next one.
>
>  I hope this helps!
>
>  Cheers
> Mary
>
>  Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>  From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42
> To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
>
>    Dear SCI members,
>
>
>
> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business
> Constituency Charter Review Team.  I am wondering whether this request must
> come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI.
>
>
>
> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report,
> Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to
> prepare drafts for Council of the two “immediate issue” requests mentioned
> in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2)
> whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day
> advance notice for motions.  I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft
> language for these requests with the Council.   It may make sense for us to
> see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri.
>
>
>
> So the questions for staff are:
>
>
>
> 1.       Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the
> request must be submitted by the BC itself?
>
> 2.       Where do the “friendly amendment” and “applicability of 10 day
> waiver to resubmitted motions” action items from the GNSO Council meeting
> in Singapore stand at this time?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
> <martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:30 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Subject:* Request to the SCI - Vote switching
>
>
>
> Dear Anne,
>
> I am a member of the Business Constituency and currently working with the
> BC Charter Review team.  During our recent discussions, we identified a
> potential issue that may affect GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and
> Constituencies (Cs) which may warrant the attention of the SCI, which I
> understand you currently chair.
>
> With the introduction of New gTLDs, an increasing number of organisations
> now meet the criteria of membership within multiple groups, even across the
> contracting and non-contracting parties divide.  The point in question is
> in relation to the ability for a member of multiple SGs and Cs to regularly
> switch their voting rights between these groups in a tactical manner, so as
> to apply votes for elections/decisions where they may have concerns with
> lack of representation within a specific group, at a specific time. Whilst
> they may only vote in one of the SGs or Cs, there is no restriction as to
> when and how frequently they may switch their voting power between these
> groups.  This could be too flexible and potentially allow the system to be
> exploited.
>
> I am pleased to say that there is no evidence that this is occurring but
> as new members continue to increase, it seems sensible to consider
> preventative measures be put in place to protect the GNSO for the future.
> As an example, a multi-member organisation could be obliged to commit
>  holding it's voting rights within one group for a minimum term of 12
> months before switching to another group.  Of course, this would need to be
> uniform across all of the SGs and Cs, hence, we think it is appropriate to
> raise this issue with the SCI for consideration.
>
> I would be happy to discuss further and interested to know if you feel
> this would be appropriate and worthwhile for the SCI to assess.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Martin
> *Martin C SUTTON *
> Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence
> Global Security & Fraud Risk
> Level 8,1 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5AB,United Kingdom
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
>
>   Phone
>
> +44 (0)207 991 8074
>
> Mobile
>
> +44 (0)777 4556680
>
> Email
>
> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
>
> Website
>
> www.hsbc.com
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------
> SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
>
> This E-mail is confidential.
>
> It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may
> not copy,
> forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message
> in error,
> please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
> immediately by
> return E-mail.
>
> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or
> virus-free.
> The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx <gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*