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

[Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interestingly, the related issue of dealing with potential voting rights
across multiple constituencies came up in the IPC yesterday -- completely
coincidentally.  When the time comes, I'm sure IPC leadership would be
happy to explore the issue with BC leadership in a more informal way.

Greg

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>