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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

True.
that meeting is Tuesday at 20 UTC.

avri

On 27-Feb-15 23:38, Mary Wong wrote:
> Thanks again, Avri and Greg – one additional point then is that, in
> sending the request back to the BC it may be helpful to add that they
> can also raise the issue with the GNSO Review Working Party through
> their representatives on that group.
>
> 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
> <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>"
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote
> switching
>
>     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/>/*
>
>