<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
- To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Angie Graves'" <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:24:38 +0000
Seeing no comments on my draft to Martin sent to the list March 18, I will
forward.
Thank you,
Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01D0663E.4251D890]
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 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] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:33 AM
To: 'Angie Graves'
Cc: Mary Wong; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; Ron Andruff
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Thanks Angie, for volunteering to address this informally with Martin. I will
simply let him know your are going to follow up as the SCI rep from the BC. I
do wonder, however, whether we should be providing a somewhat formal response
to the effect that the SCI can only consider questions raised by Council or a
group chartered by Council. This would provide a consistent record of
responding correctly from a procedural standpoint.
I also think we should note this issue in relation to our “periodic review”
responsibilities in relation to the GNSO Operating Procedures generally and
make sure we take stock of the status of the issue at that time.
I therefore propose to respond to Martin using a modified version of one of
Mary’s previously drafted paragraphs (shown in black below) as follows:
Martin,
Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of potential
“vote switching” among constituencies. Although the BC Charter team presents
an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the SCI at this time
since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO Council or a group
chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet formulated or presented
to Council a plan for periodic review of the Operating Procedures which might
involve review of issues related to 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures,
both of which address the rule that "No legal or natural person should be a
voting member of more than one Group."
Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has volunteered to
discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be explored further
within the BC.
Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the
BC at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause.
Since 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 suggestions for
mitigation of this potential problem. 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 its own process for charter amendment.
We hope the above is helpful to the BC’s Charter team deliberations.
Thank you,
Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01D0663E.4251D890]
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: angie12345@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:angie12345@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:angie12345@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angie Graves
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:13 PM
To: 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
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
[cid:image001.gif@01D0663E.4251D890]
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
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
Website
www.hsbc.com<http://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>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: 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
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
Website
www.hsbc.com<http://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<mailto: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>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: 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
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
Website
www.hsbc.com<http://www.hsbc.com/>
__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
________________________________
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not
copy,
forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in
error,
please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
immediately by
return E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or
virus-free.
The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
************************************************************
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.
________________________________
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.
________________________________
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.
![GIF image](gifkUAzlByXbQ.gif)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|