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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am also not judging the issue or its possible importance.

avri

On 27-Feb-15 12:39, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not our
> issue to bring to the Council.
>
> Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential concerns
> about the issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path.
>
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council.
>
>     But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am
>     reporting it as something we did not take on and kicked back.  I
>     think that if the CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt with by the
>     G-Council, it makes the most sense for them to make their case to
>     the G-Council themselves.
>
>     As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct
>     action for the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication
>     that the proper approach to the SCI is through the GNSO Council.
>
>     avri
>
>     On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote:
>>     Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The
>>     GNSO Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for
>>     either the next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps
>>     Avri (as a Council member and Council liaison to the SCI) with
>>     staff support (as needed) can bring up this issue at the
>>     appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel I obliged to
>>     state that Greg’s latter point – logical though it is – seems to
>>     raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C
>>     self-governance that go beyond the SCI’s remit and that will most
>>     likely require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or
>>     Council determination, or both.
>>
>>     Cheers
>>     Mary
>>
>>     Mary Wong
>>     Senior Policy Director
>>     Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>     Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>     Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>     From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>     Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53
>>     To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>>     Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
>>     <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>     Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI -
>>     Vote switching
>>
>>         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 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
>>>             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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F)
>>>                 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
>>>
>>>                 *_AAikman@LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.com
>>>                 <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 **
>>>
>>>
>>>                     
>>>
>>>                 * *
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 *From:*martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
>>>                 [mailto: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 <http://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/*
>>
>>         *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx/*
>>
>>         */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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 <mailto:gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>/*
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>
>