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

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Anne.  You are welcome to copy me on the message to Martin, if
you are able, and I will follow-up with him shortly thereafter.  Otherwise,
I will follow-up with him tomorrow regardless.

Angie



On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Seeing no comments on my draft to Martin sent to the list March 18, I
> will forward.
>
> 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 *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
>
>
>
>
>
>   *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:* angie12345@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:angie12345@xxxxxxxxx
> <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>; 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>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>