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

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Mary.  I agree.  I am glad to reach out to Martin on this.

Angie

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32
> To: Ron Andruff <RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Angie Graves <
> angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mary
> Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <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>
> 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 randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; *REPLACE
>> WITH: RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <RA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Ron Andruff*
>>
>> *ONR Consulting, Inc.*
>>
>> *www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.icannsherpa.com/>*
>>
>> *(+1) 917 770-2693 <%28%2B1%29%20917%20770-2693>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* WUKnoben [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; 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 <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM
>>
>> *To:*Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> *Cc:* Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> ;
>> mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ; Ron Andruff <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>
>> 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 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>>
>> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
>> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*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>; 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
>>
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07
>> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Cc: *"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <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> 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>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43
>> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Cc: *"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <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> 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
>>
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52
>> *To: *Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "<
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <
>> 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>
>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM
>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <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
>>
>> Mobile
>>
>> +44 (0)777 4556680
>>
>> Email
>>
>> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
>>
>> Website
>>
>> www.hsbc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To:        Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC@HSBC
>> Cc:        'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <
>> julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"        <
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Ron Andruff' <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> 'Angie Graves' <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 <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:* 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
>>
>> Mobile
>>
>> +44 (0)777 4556680
>>
>> Email
>>
>> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
>>
>> Website
>>
>> www.hsbc.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC
>> To:        "Anne Aikman-Scalese" <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
>> Mob:  ++44 (0)777 4556680
>> 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]
>> * 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 <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.
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>