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

["Ron Andruff" <RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary and all for the good input on this issue.

 

I am good with the recommended way forward.  I would look to our BC Primary
rep, Angie, to take this to Martin and the sub-committee, if no one has any
objections.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

 

PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE  <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; REPLACE WITH:  <mailto:RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

Ron Andruff

ONR Consulting, Inc.

 <http://www.icannsherpa.com/> www.ICANNSherpa.com 

(+1) 917 770-2693

 

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 17:35
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

Thanks to Ron and everyone for their insights. It sounds like there is
general agreement that this is at the moment an internal BC issue, with the
possibility of its going to the GNSO Council at some appropriate time for
discussion and possible coordination of a consistent position or rule. As
noted in previous discussions, 

 

At this point, staff respectfully suggests that the best approach may be for
Ron and Angie, as the BC representatives to the SCI, to write or speak
directly to Martin. Besides the preliminary nature of the question and the
possible options as suggested, we thought that it made sense that the
response not be an official one from the SCI through the Chair, since the
query was a somewhat informal one from a group from within the BC and not an
official BC request.

 

Cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> 

 

 

 

 

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32
To: Ron Andruff <RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> >, Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >, Ron Andruff
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

Ron, 

 

That is very helpful background.  I agree that the BC needs to progress this
more before bringing it to the Council (if at all).  If this is an issue
that the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of options to
do so.  I think that the email letter was intended to capture those options.

 

One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that
start the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues.

Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective
leadership groups about this.

Another option is to bring it to the Council.

 

Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to the
SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating Procedures
is seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against
vote-switching.

 

At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C
leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they
are currently thinking about it.  Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite
instructive.  Anything more than that is probably premature.

 

Greg 

 

 

 

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff <RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Dear all,

 

As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the SCI,
and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I thought it
might help if I provided some further context.  

 

Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters to
remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my knowledge)
have done so, at this point in time.  The BC took the approach of trying to
develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as possible. We
are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines between
constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each
constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company
that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example.

 

We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC
Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by
the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI.

 

In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the
sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft
Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are
obliged).  So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many
levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it.

 

At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a certain
level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the constituency
level.  Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the horse…

 

My two cents… Hope this sheds more light on the matter.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

 

PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE  <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; REPLACE WITH:  <mailto:RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Ron Andruff

ONR Consulting, Inc.

 <http://www.icannsherpa.com/> www.ICANNSherpa.com

(+1) 917 770-2693 <tel:%28%2B1%29%20917%20770-2693> 

 

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36
To: Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> ; Ron Andruff
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up .
Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs
to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form.

 

FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: 

 

<<...

Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of
another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in
ways other than their ISPCP membership.

Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required
to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented
meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN
affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity
Providers perspectives within the ISPCP.

In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information
to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status
or that of their organisation. 

...>>

 

This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked
about on a case by case. 

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From:Angie Graves <mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM

To:Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> 

Cc: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>  ;
mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx ; Ron Andruff
<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

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

 

Dear all, 

 

If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in
the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole
that Martin discovered.

 

Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI:

"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."

 

 

 

Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI
should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of
identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of
more than one Group."

 

Regards,

 

Angie

 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Mary,

Our  response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO
Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC.  We
should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this
question.

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@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>  | www.LRRLaw.com
<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 

        
        

 

        
 

 

From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM
Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >; Ron Andruff


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

 

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg.  I will amend the note to reflect
your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly
rather than with individual SG/Cs. 

 

On the question of whether the BC’s question raises the broader question of
the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can
include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic
to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to
the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for
further/future review at the appropriate time. 

 

Thanks and 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 <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> 

 

 

 

 

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
>
Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >, Ron Andruff
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. 

 

I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot
generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council
or from a "group chartered by the Council."  The Business Constituency is
neither, since it is chartered by ICANN.

 

However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and
functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section
6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting
member of more than one Group."  The BC is questioning whether this Section
of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given
the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs.  The
GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council.  Therefore,
this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and
which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate
deliberations.  I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the
Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter.  As
you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number
of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures.  To the extent that this
relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the
Council to take up.

 

Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better
forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the
SG/C's, which do not meet regularly.  If the leaderships did meet and decide
that  a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against
vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule
would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO
Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j).  Sending this issue through the SG/C
leaderships would just delay consideration.

 

It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or
email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the
Council.  We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue.
We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred
to us by the Council.

 

I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult
with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis.  This is the kind of problem that
cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and
results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to
"vote-switchers" and others that are not.  In any event, I don't think this
should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a
charter review.  This issue is timely because this is an increasingly
realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter.

 

Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options,
and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options.
If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine.  If the
BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too.

 

Greg

 

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Hello everyone,

 

Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie
agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched
out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI
chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense
to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email
rather than as a separate letter would work too.

 

On Amr’s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that
each SG/C – in the current GNSO structure – is obliged to include procedures
for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure,
and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure
with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each
SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took
place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency
had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board – this took place in early
2009.

 

Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below.

 

 

Dear Martin,

 

Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO’s Standing Committee on
Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed
the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the
possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we
agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO’s rules or
procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the
remit of the SCI. 

 

The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the
effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working
Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder
Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter,
for the simple reason that the ICANN’s bottom-up community structure is
based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping,
adoption, review and amendment of each group’s charter is therefore a matter
for that group’s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight
exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the
discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group’s charter (see
Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws).

 

Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by
the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to
happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC’s
consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a
revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its
internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external
input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its
decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could
reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be
developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs
are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each
SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It
may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within
the broader GNSO community.

 

In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures
prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure
representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically,
while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their
participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see
Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In
line therefore with the concept of community–based bottom–up governance, if
a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve
the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO
norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating
Procedures.

 

Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may
also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that
is coordinating this effort on the community’s behalf, perhaps through the
BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report
of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in
mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that
can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as
well. 

 

I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should
you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of
the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not
hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community’s
efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes.

 

With best regards,

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

2015 Chair, SCI 

 

 

 

 

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >, Ron Andruff
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

Hi,

 

I haven’t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion
was headed in an agreeable direction.

 

I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn’t
become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others,
I don’t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn’t a policy issue, I
honestly don’t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of
the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don’t think it would be harmful
for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked
up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO’s
SGs/Cs.

 

Isn’t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as
well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn’t find one.
May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is
indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter
revision.

 

Thanks.

 

Amr

 

On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

 

Dear Angie and everyone,

 

Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments – I think we are both saying
very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines
its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general
reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based
bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best
determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations
mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the
question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a
substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform
or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring
it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as
something that can be done through each SG/C’s representatives on the GNSO
Working Party, including the BC's. 

 

Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which
we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is
necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover,
nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please
reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none
is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted
herein.

 

Thanks and 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 <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> 

 

 

 

From: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52
To: Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >, Mary Wong
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >,
"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>
Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 

Dear Anne, Mary and SCI,

 

I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC
and the SCI.  If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary
Wong's pending response, I defer to her.

 

I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I
say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has
raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution
to the potential for abuse of voting rights.

 

Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council
processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been
identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG).  As the Business Constituency is
one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG)
referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter
review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies
outside of the SCI's scope.

 

I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC
Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way
forward.  My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this
issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its
first order of business--the charter review.  In seeking BC consensus on
the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the
constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path
forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC
membership.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thank you,

 

Angie

 

 

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <martinsutton@xxxxxxxx <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> >
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM
Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >, Ron
Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >


Dear Anne, 

Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted.

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 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29207%20991%208074> 


Mobile

+44 (0)777 4556680 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29777%204556680> 


Email

 <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx


Website

 <http://www.hsbc.com/> www.hsbc.com



__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!






From:        "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >
To:        Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC@HSBC
Cc:        'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >,
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> >,
"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>"        <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >, 'Ron Andruff'
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, 'Angie
Graves' <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date:        07/03/2015 22:20
Subject:        RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching


  _____  





Martin, 
Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list
regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam.  
  
Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be
circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a
consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation.  At
present we have  no calls scheduled.  If SCI members are not in agreement
with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing,
we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than
achieved to date on the list.  In this regard, you may want to alert and
brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my
knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the
discussion of this matter on the SCI list.
Thank you, 
Anne 
  
  
  
  
 

 


<ATT00001.gif> 

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> 


 <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx |  <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
www.LRRLaw.com

        
        


 

 

        
 


  
From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>  [
<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching 
  
Dear Anne, 

As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to
meet/discuss the item raised below?  I just want to manage expectations with
the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 

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 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29207%20991%208074> 


Mobile

+44 (0)777 4556680 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29777%204556680> 


Email

 <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx


Website

 <http://www.hsbc.com/> www.hsbc.com




__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!







From:        Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC
To:        "Anne Aikman-Scalese" < <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        26/02/2015 23:21
Subject:        Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching

 


  _____  






Thank you Anne, much appreciated. 

Martin Sutton
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
Ph:  ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 <tel:%2B%2B44%20%280%2920%207991%208074> 
Mob:  ++44 (0)777 4556680 <tel:%2B%2B44%20%280%29777%204556680> 
Sent from my BlackBerry

*********************************

HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987

*********************************

 


  _____  


  From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> ]
Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT
To: Martin C SUTTON
Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching


Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI.
Anne 
 

 


<ATT00002.gif> 

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> 


 <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx |  <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
www.LRRLaw.com

        
        


 

 

        
 


 
From:  <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [
<mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29207%20991%208074> 


Mobile

+44 (0)777 4556680 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29777%204556680> 


Email

 <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx


Website

 <http://www.hsbc.com/> 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.



************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************

 


  _____  



-----------------------------------------
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.



************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************

 


  _____  


-----------------------------------------
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<ATT00001.gif><ATT00002.gif>

 

 

 


  _____  



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.