From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Feb 3 12:19:34 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 12:19:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03F6D.6B431D10] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03F6D.6B431D10] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Feb 3 15:12:23 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:12:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out ? because some SCI members may not be aware of this ? that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'" Cc: Mary Wong Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council > Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions > below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. > > Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared > some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For > purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to > weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry > ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI > recommendation to Council.) > > 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for > friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake > this work? > > > > 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the > 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, > should SCI undertake this work? > > > > With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in > the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only > three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to > have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. > > With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this > topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that > comment from three SCI members is incomplete. > > Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since > that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic > review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and > discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under > the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal > consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like > to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? > recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but > realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored > further in future calls. > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM > To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on > the list. > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Anne, > > > > I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your > message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If > you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately > in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using > for Singapore presentations. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM > To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Hi Avri, >> Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of >> the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) >> Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN >> public meeting. >> >> Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking >> on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our >> working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any >> inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. >> Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? >> >> Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today >> with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. >> >> Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions >> to the list. >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Feb 3 15:35:32 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:35:32 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <34F2749A-8DD3-4937-9CFE-DA62F447D99F@egyptig.org> Hi, I think 1 and 2 would be good recommendations to include in the letter. Like I said before though, I would appreciate it if the context on why we want to now raise the issue of 10-day rule waivers? applicability to resubmitted motions be presented as clearly as possible. I?d be glad to help with that, if needed. Thanks. Amr On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. > > Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) > > 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? > > 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? > > > With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. > > With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. > > Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM > To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > Anne, > > I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM > To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > Hi Avri, > Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. > > Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? > > Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. > > Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. > Anne > > > > > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Feb 3 18:27:22 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:27:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE7AB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie. I should correct the deadline for responses to Thursday February 5 20:00 UTC - (as Feb 4 is Weds.) I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the Westlake Report. Cheers, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out - because some SCI members may not be aware of this - that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'" > Cc: Mary Wong > Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From angie at webgroup.com Wed Feb 4 10:28:58 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:28:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE7AB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE7AB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: I agree with the questions proposed. It would be helpful to see the context/report when/if it becomes available. Angie On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Thanks Julie. I should correct the deadline for responses to *Thursday > February 5 20:00 UTC* ? (as Feb 4 is Weds.) > > > > I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the > Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before > commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, > I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the > Westlake Report. > > > > Cheers, > > 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 at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' > *Cc:* Mary Wong > *Subject:* Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council > *Importance:* High > > > > Dear Anne, > > > > Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it > will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet > expressed an opinion. > > > > Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out ? because some SCI > members may not be aware of this ? that there is a GNSO group already > tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review > Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > *From: *, Anne > *Date: *Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM > *To: *Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , > "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'" > *Cc: *Mary Wong > *Subject: *SCI Chair's Report to Council > > > > *Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two > questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.* > > > > Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has > prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor > edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for > each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is > an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do > not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) > > > > 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for > friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI > undertake this work? > > > > 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of > the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating > Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? > > > > > > With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection > in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that > only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for > SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly > amendments. > > > > With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this > topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that > comment from three SCI members is incomplete. > > > > Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since > that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic > review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and > discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan > under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need > formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I > would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic > review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires > meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be > explored further in future calls. > > > > 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 at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM > *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts > on the list. > > 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 at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Anne, > > > > I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your > message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. > If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me > separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template > we are using for Singapore presentations. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > *Date: *Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM > *To: *'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> > *Cc: *Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi Avri, > > Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes > of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding > this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at > each ICANN public meeting. > > > > Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your > thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion > as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think > there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on > that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? > > > > Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today > with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. > > > > Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active > contributions to the list. > > Anne > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Feb 5 00:10:58 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 00:10:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE7AB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7049@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Angie. Please see attached report. Many thanks to staff, Vice Chair Lori, and former Chair Ron for their assistance in preparing these slides. Hopefully we will get more responses to the two questions in the ?straw poll? in the next day. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0409D.87A78410] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 3:29 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Mary Wong Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council I agree with the questions proposed. It would be helpful to see the context/report when/if it becomes available. Angie On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Thanks Julie. I should correct the deadline for responses to Thursday February 5 20:00 UTC ? (as Feb 4 is Weds.) I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the Westlake Report. Cheers, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0409D.87A78410] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out ? because some SCI members may not be aware of this ? that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'" > Cc: Mary Wong > Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0409D.87A78410] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0409D.87A78410] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Report to GNSO Singapore Feb 2015.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 470005 bytes Desc: SCI Report to GNSO Singapore Feb 2015.pptx URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Thu Feb 5 03:30:23 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:30:23 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Both 1 and 2 should be addressed. Greg On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > *Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two > questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.* > > > > Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has > prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor > edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for > each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is > an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do > not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) > > > > 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for > friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI > undertake this work? > > > > 2. In connection with the question of considering the application > of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating > Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? > > > > > > With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection > in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that > only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for > SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly > amendments. > > > > With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this > topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that > comment from three SCI members is incomplete. > > > > Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since > that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic > review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and > discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan > under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need > formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I > would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic > review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires > meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be > explored further in future calls. > > > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** > | www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM > *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts > on the list. > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** > | www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Anne, > > > > I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your > message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. > If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me > separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template > we are using for Singapore presentations. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM > *To: *'Avri Doria' >, " > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc: *Glen de Saint G?ry > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi Avri, > > Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes > of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding > this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at > each ICANN public meeting. > > > > Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your > thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion > as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think > there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on > that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? > > > > Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today > with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. > > > > Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active > contributions to the list. > > Anne > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan at lawabel.com * *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * *www.lawabel.com * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Thu Feb 5 05:29:42 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:29:42 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bgnso-improvem-impl-sc=5D?= SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1YJF0Y-0oERvM0@fwd38.aul.t-online.de> I support the SCI considering these questions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Datum: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:32:14 +0100 Von: Greg Shatan An: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Both 1 and 2 should be addressed. Greg On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com [2] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com [3] From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ------------------------- 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. -- Gregory S. Shatan ? Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan at lawabel.com [4] ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com [5] www.lawabel.com [6] Links: ------ [1] mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com [2] http://www.lrrlaw.com/ [3] http://www.lrrlaw.com/ [4] mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com [5] mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com [6] http://www.lawabel.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Feb 5 03:43:37 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:43:37 +0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <66A589E97B9B4003ADD94A24005043C0@WUKPC> I support the SCI considering these questions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:19 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Avri Doria' ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Feb 5 17:43:43 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:43:43 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Travel Delay Message-ID: <50BDF55D-6F8D-4B67-B816-AB4CE44007AE@egyptig.org> Hi, My flight leaving from Troms? was postponed several times today, then cancelled altogether. I?ve been in touch with BCD Travel, and I should have a new ticket issued soon, but I was told that I wouldn?t be able to make it to Singapore until Saturday evening. I guess I?ll miss the Saturday sessions. I?m not too happy about it, but there doesn?t seem to be much that can be done at this time. Just thought I should let you all know. Hope all of your flights are safe and comfy. Thanks. Amr From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Feb 5 18:26:58 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:26:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Travel Delay In-Reply-To: <50BDF55D-6F8D-4B67-B816-AB4CE44007AE@egyptig.org> References: <50BDF55D-6F8D-4B67-B816-AB4CE44007AE@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7972@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Hi Amr, I am thinking they may be able to dial out to you if the time difference is not too crazy. Thank you for your active participation in SCI. Anne P.S. Very sorry for all that is presently occurring in Egypt. 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:44 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: GNSO Secretariats; Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Travel Delay Hi, My flight leaving from Troms? was postponed several times today, then cancelled altogether. I've been in touch with BCD Travel, and I should have a new ticket issued soon, but I was told that I wouldn't be able to make it to Singapore until Saturday evening. I guess I'll miss the Saturday sessions. I'm not too happy about it, but there doesn't seem to be much that can be done at this time. Just thought I should let you all know. Hope all of your flights are safe and comfy. Thanks. Amr ________________________________ 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. From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Feb 5 18:43:05 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 19:43:05 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Travel Delay In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7972@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <50BDF55D-6F8D-4B67-B816-AB4CE44007AE@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7972@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <44CA001F-3390-4C04-9AA3-B48B6B13A955@egyptig.org> Hi Anne, On Feb 5, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Hi Amr, > I am thinking they may be able to dial out to you if the time difference is not too crazy. I hope to be on a plane on my way to Singapore at the time of the SCI meeting on Saturday. Keeping my fingers crossed. > Thank you for your active participation in SCI. > Anne > P.S. Very sorry for all that is presently occurring in Egypt. Thanks Anne. So am I. I appreciate the sentiment. Amr From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Feb 5 21:21:07 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:21:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] CWG-IANA Update: Discussion Document for ICANN52 Singapore Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7B34@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI Members, We may all want to be aware of the work of the CWG-IANA on Stewardship of Naming Related functions. The attached document outlines 4 proposals currently under discussion. These include a proposal with a Trust outside of ICANN holding IANA operation rights, a proposal with ICANN holding IANA operation rights in trust, and a proposal where ICANN's bylaws have been sufficiently amended to provide necessary accountability measures to the community. The timeline for this CWG work has also been revised and is attached. Safe travels to Singapore for those who are traveling! Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0414E.462BBB30] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG-SingaporeDiscussionDocument-Final (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 474874 bytes Desc: CWG-SingaporeDiscussionDocument-Final (1).pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129 (2).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83290 bytes Desc: ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129 (2).pdf URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Fri Feb 6 00:10:26 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:10:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7D2E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI Members, In addition to Angie (BC), Amr (NCUC), Wolf-Ulrich(ISPCP), and Greg(IPC), I have had NPOC communication from Lori off-list in response to the two questions below. (Have asked Lori to respond on the list for the record.) Will constituencies/stakeholders who have not directly responded to the two questions in the SCI straw poll below please do so before the beginning of the GNSO Council Working Sessions on Saturday? This includes NCSG, RrSG, RySG, and Nom Com. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04164.44F42390] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:20 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04164.44F42390] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04164.44F42390] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From lori.schulman at ascd.org Fri Feb 6 00:42:45 2015 From: lori.schulman at ascd.org (Lori Schulman) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:42:45 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7D2E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6CE651@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>,<3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7D2E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: For the record, I agree that we should address both issues. Lori Schulman On Feb 5, 2015, at 7:12 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: Dear SCI Members, In addition to Angie (BC), Amr (NCUC), Wolf-Ulrich(ISPCP), and Greg(IPC), I have had NPOC communication from Lori off-list in response to the two questions below. (Have asked Lori to respond on the list for the record.) Will constituencies/stakeholders who have not directly responded to the two questions in the SCI straw poll below please do so before the beginning of the GNSO Council Working Sessions on Saturday? This includes NCSG, RrSG, RySG, and Nom Com. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:20 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair?s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry ? not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ?straw poll? on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ?periodic review? element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI?s ?periodic review? responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ?periodic review? recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Fri Feb 6 00:46:04 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:46:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: SCI Report to the GNSO Singapore February 2015 PowerPoint.PPTX In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7C48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7F7A@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7F9C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI members, Staff made some formatting changes to the SCI slides. I added a picture on the front page since I will not be in the room in Singapore. Attached is the final version - no change from the previous version sent to you except format and picture. Hope you have a wonderful ICANN 52! Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04169.6AF3D2C0] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com 8 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Report to the GNSO Singapore February 2015 PowerPoint.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 996111 bytes Desc: SCI Report to the GNSO Singapore February 2015 PowerPoint.pdf URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Mon Feb 9 23:22:42 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:22:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Report to the GNSO Singapore February 2015 PowerPoint.PPTX In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7F9C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7C48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7F7A@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6D7F9C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6DBFFE@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear all, By way of update, the SCI report was given to the GNSO Council Saturday morning in Singapore. The conclusion was that the two items listed as "immediate problems" should in fact be addressed by SCI. Avri volunteered to create the scoping template for both issues. We will not be holding any SCI calls until the scoping docs are reviewed by Council. For those of you present in Singapore, thank you for your assistance and have a great meeting! Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04484.A0C9B590] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 5:46 PM To: Cc: Mary Wong; 'Julie Hedlund'; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: SCI Report to the GNSO Singapore February 2015 PowerPoint.PPTX Dear SCI members, Staff made some formatting changes to the SCI slides. I added a picture on the front page since I will not be in the room in Singapore. Attached is the final version - no change from the previous version sent to you except format and picture. Hope you have a wonderful ICANN 52! Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04169.6AF3D2C0] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com 8 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Feb 11 04:17:13 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:17:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Review - Westlake Slides from Singapore Session Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6DEBDD@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI Members, Attached for your information please see the slides just presented by Westlake at ICANN 52 in the GNSO Review working party session in Singapore. Best regards, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D04576.9C39B730] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: presentation-gnso-review-briefing-11feb15-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1071732 bytes Desc: presentation-gnso-review-briefing-11feb15-en.pdf URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Feb 26 20:42:49 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:42:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI members, Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. So the questions for staff are: 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the request must be submitted by the BC itself? 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting in Singapore stand at this time? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D051C9.7FCF9010] 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 at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] 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 at hsbc.com 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Thu Feb 26 23:05:30 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:05:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hello Anne and everyone, As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval of an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one group. In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish to revise their own charters in the same way). As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of other projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the next one. I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org From: , Anne Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 To: "" Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > Dear SCI members, > > Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business Constituency > Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must come officially > from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. > > Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, Avri > volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to prepare drafts > for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned in the SCI report, > that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) whether or not resubmitted > motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day advance notice for motions. I > understand that Avri will be reviewing draft language for these requests with > the Council. It may make sense for us to see a draft and provide some > comments, but that is up to Avri. > > So the questions for staff are: > > 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the request must > be submitted by the BC itself? > > 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day waiver > to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting in > Singapore stand at this time? > > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] > 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 > Emailmartinsutton at hsbc.com > Websitewww.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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Feb 26 11:43:57 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:43:57 +0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> Hi, Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO Review. On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to present cases to the SCI. > For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects > to receive detailed input from the group affected by the > process/operational change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a > group chartered by the GNSO Council can make such requests. The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. thanks avri On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: > Hello Anne and everyone, > > As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting > and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are > determined by their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and > approves its own charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely > provide that the Board can review a group?s charter periodically. It > therefore follows that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not provide > for the review, amendment or approval of an SG?s or C?s charter by a > body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO Operating Procedures > do, however, prescribe certain common standards to be followed by each > SG and C in its charter and operations, such as transparency, > accountability, inclusiveness and representation. Accordingly, the > Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s voting rights > must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that a legal > or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one group. > > In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises > would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out > for and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership > consider initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this > point, to see if this is a matter that warrants either a revision of > or addition to each group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may > internally wish to propose such an update to its own charter, which it > is of course at liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance > (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish to revise their own charters > in the same way). > > As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action > items noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be > providing Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the > topic to the GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do > not know if it will be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, > as that will depend on the Council chairs? determination as to urgency > and deadlines of other projects and topics. I expect that if it does > not make it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it will likely be > on the list for inclusion at the next one. > > I hope this helps! > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > From: , Anne > > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 > To: " >" > > > Cc: Mary Wong >, > Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear SCI members, > > > > Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business > Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this > request must come officially from the BC in order to be considered > by SCI. > > > > Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI > report, Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to > SCI and to prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? > requests mentioned in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly > amendments to motions and (2) whether or not resubmitted motions > are eligible for waiver of the ten day advance notice for > motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft language > for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to > see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. > > > > So the questions for staff are: > > > > 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the > request must be submitted by the BC itself? > > 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of > 10 day waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO > Council meeting in Singapore stand at this time? > > > > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*martinsutton at hsbc.com > [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] > *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 at hsbc.com > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 00:53:42 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:53:42 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> Message-ID: This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise from that can only be imagined. Greg On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such > consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group > looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder > activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as > 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a > process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG > charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of > a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and > business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be > the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO > Review. > > On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to > present cases to the SCI. > > For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to > receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational > change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO > Council can make such requests. > > > The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the > staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. > > The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template > to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C > had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not > and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we > would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. > > thanks > avri > > > On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: > > Hello Anne and everyone, > > As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting > and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by > their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own > charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can > review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO > Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval > of an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The > GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards > to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as > transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. > Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s > voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that > a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one > group. > > In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises > would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for > and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider > initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if > this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each > group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose > such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do > as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs > wish to revise their own charters in the same way). > > As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items > noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing > Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the > GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will > be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on > the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of other > projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda > for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the > next one. > > I hope this helps! > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 > To: "" > Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' > Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear SCI members, > > > > Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business > Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must > come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. > > > > Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, > Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to > prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned > in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) > whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day > advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft > language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to > see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. > > > > So the questions for staff are: > > > > 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the > request must be submitted by the BC itself? > > 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day > waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting > in Singapore stand at this time? > > > > 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 at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > > *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > *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 at hsbc.com > > 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. > > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan at lawabel.com * *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * *www.lawabel.com * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Fri Feb 27 02:10:31 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 02:10:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either the next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a Council member and Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can bring up this issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel I obliged to state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though it is ? seems to raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance that go beyond the SCI?s remit and that will most likely require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council determination, or both. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org From: Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 To: Avri Doria Cc: "" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an amendment > to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover SG/C voting > issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather than having > each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding "carpet-baggers," > The inconsistent results that could arise from that can only be imagined. > > Greg > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such consideration >> more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group looking at how we >> organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder activities. Stakeholder >> group charters are approved by the Board as 'negotiated' between the SIC and >> the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a process defined by the SIC >> complemented by conditions defined in the SG charter. I do agree that there >> is complexity in dealing with the issue of a large corporation with many >> divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and business lines having only a >> vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be the right time to get such >> considerations put on the table for the GNSO Review. >> >> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to present >> cases to the SCI. >> >>> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to >>> receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational >>> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>> Council can make such requests. >> >> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the >> staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. >> >> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template to >> the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C had >> standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not and they >> needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we would all >> agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. >> >> thanks >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Hello Anne and everyone, >>> >>> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting and >>> membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by >>> their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own >>> charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can >>> review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO >>> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval of >>> an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO >>> Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards to be >>> followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as >>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. Accordingly, >>> the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s voting rights >>> must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that a legal or >>> natural person may not be a voting member of more than one group. >>> >>> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises would >>> seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for and >>> amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider >>> initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if >>> this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each >>> group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose >>> such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do as >>> part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish >>> to revise their own charters in the same way). >>> >>> As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items >>> noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing >>> Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the >>> GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will >>> be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on the >>> Council chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of other projects >>> and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda for the >>> March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the next one. >>> >>> I hope this helps! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >>> To: "" >>> Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund >>> , 'Avri Doria' >>> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>>> Dear SCI members, >>>> >>>> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business >>>> Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must >>>> come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >>>> >>>> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, >>>> Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to >>>> prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned >>>> in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) >>>> whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day >>>> advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft >>>> language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to >>>> see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. >>>> >>>> So the questions for staff are: >>>> >>>> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the request >>>> must be submitted by the BC itself? >>>> >>>> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day >>>> waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting >>>> in Singapore stand at this time? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] >>>> 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 >>>> Emailmartinsutton at hsbc.com >>>> Websitewww.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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory S. Shatan ? Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>> Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet >>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>> www.lawabel.com >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 02:14:04 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:14:04 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> Message-ID: Mary, I absolutely agree that this is a GNSO Council issue -- it can be remitted to the SCI should the Council choose, either for substantive discussion, or merely to create the amendment after a substantive decision by the Council, but it definitely has to pass through the GNSO Council. If there were a council of SG/C Chairs, it might also go there, but since that is not a ready-made body, the Council seems the best place to deal with this. Greg On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO > Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either the > next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a Council > member and Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can > bring up this issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel > I obliged to state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though it is ? seems > to raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C > self-governance that go beyond the SCI?s remit and that will most likely > require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council > determination, or both. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > From: Greg Shatan > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 > To: Avri Doria > Cc: "" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an > amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover > SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather > than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding > "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise from that can > only be imagined. > > Greg > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such >> consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group >> looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder >> activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as >> 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a >> process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG >> charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of >> a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and >> business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be >> the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO >> Review. >> >> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to >> present cases to the SCI. >> >> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to >> receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational >> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >> Council can make such requests. >> >> >> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the >> staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. >> >> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template >> to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C >> had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not >> and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we >> would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. >> >> thanks >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Hello Anne and everyone, >> >> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting >> and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by >> their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own >> charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can >> review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO >> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval >> of an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The >> GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards >> to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as >> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. >> Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s >> voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that >> a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one >> group. >> >> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises >> would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for >> and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider >> initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if >> this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each >> group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose >> such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do >> as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs >> wish to revise their own charters in the same way). >> >> As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items >> noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing >> Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the >> GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will >> be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on >> the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of other >> projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda >> for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the >> next one. >> >> I hope this helps! >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >> To: "" >> Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund < >> julie.hedlund at icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' >> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear SCI members, >> >> >> >> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business >> Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must >> come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >> >> >> >> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, >> Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to >> prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned >> in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) >> whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day >> advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft >> language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to >> see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. >> >> >> >> So the questions for staff are: >> >> >> >> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the >> request must be submitted by the BC itself? >> >> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day >> waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting >> in Singapore stand at this time? >> >> >> >> 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 at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >> ] >> *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 at hsbc.com >> >> 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. >> >> >> > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan at lawabel.com * > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * > > *www.lawabel.com * > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan at lawabel.com * *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * *www.lawabel.com * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Feb 26 15:13:32 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:13:32 +0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> Message-ID: <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> Hi, Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council. But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am reporting it as something we did not take on and kicked back. I think that if the CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt with by the G-Council, it makes the most sense for them to make their case to the G-Council themselves. As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct action for the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication that the proper approach to the SCI is through the GNSO Council. avri On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote: > Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO > Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either > the next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a > Council member and Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as > needed) can bring up this issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a > staffer, I feel I obliged to state that Greg?s latter point ? logical > though it is ? seems to raise broader questions concerning the > appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance that go beyond the SCI?s > remit and that will most likely require consideration either as part > of the GNSO Review or Council determination, or both. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > From: Greg Shatan > > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 > To: Avri Doria > > Cc: " >" > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think > an amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures > (which cover SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and > consistent solution, rather than having each SG/C amend its own > charter with its own rules regarding "carpet-baggers," The > inconsistent results that could arise from that can only be imagined. > > Greg > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such > consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that > is the group looking at how we organize our corner of > bottom-up multistakeolder activities. Stakeholder group > charters are approved by the Board as 'negotiated' between the > SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a process > defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the > SG charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing > with the issue of a large corporation with many divisions, > subsidiaries, employees, goals and business lines having only > a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be the right > time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO > Review. > > On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has > standing to present cases to the SCI. > >> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI >> expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by >> the process/operational change concerned. Either the GNSO >> Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can make >> such requests. > > The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered > to and the staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. > > The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such > a template to the SCI. We actually had the specific > discussion on whether SG and C had standing. As the SCI > charter indicates we decided that they did not and they needed > to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we > would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO > Council. > > thanks > avri > > > On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >> Hello Anne and everyone, >> >> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues >> of voting and membership in each Stakeholder Group and >> Constituency are determined by their respective charters. >> Each SG or C develops and approves its own charter (as >> appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can >> review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows >> that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not provide for the >> review, amendment or approval of an SG?s or C?s charter by a >> body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO Operating >> Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards to >> be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, >> such as transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and >> representation. Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also >> specify that a group member?s voting rights must be spelled >> out clearly in the group?s charter, and that a legal or >> natural person may not be a voting member of more than one >> group. >> >> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that >> Martin raises would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs >> will need to work out for and amongst themselves. As such, we >> suggest that the BC leadership consider initiating a >> discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if >> this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or >> addition to each group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself >> may internally wish to propose such an update to its own >> charter, which it is of course at liberty to do as part of >> its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other >> SG/Cs wish to revise their own charters in the same way). >> >> As to your second question, staff has begun working on the >> action items noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we >> will shortly be providing Avri with the basic template that >> she can use to present the topic to the GNSO Council for its >> consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will be on >> the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will >> depend on the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and >> deadlines of other projects and topics. I expect that if it >> does not make it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it >> will likely be on the list for inclusion at the next one. >> >> I hope this helps! >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> From: , Anne > > >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >> To: "> >" >> > > >> Cc: Mary Wong > >, Julie Hedlund >> >, >> 'Avri Doria' > >> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear SCI members, >> >> >> >> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the >> Business Constituency Charter Review Team. I am >> wondering whether this request must come officially from >> the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >> >> >> >> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of >> the SCI report, Avri volunteered to draft a template for >> GNSO requests to SCI and to prepare drafts for Council of >> the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned in the SCI >> report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and >> (2) whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for >> waiver of the ten day advance notice for motions. I >> understand that Avri will be reviewing draft language for >> these requests with the Council. It may make sense for >> us to see a draft and provide some comments, but that is >> up to Avri. >> >> >> >> So the questions for staff are: >> >> >> >> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) >> that the request must be submitted by the BC itself? >> >> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and >> ?applicability of 10 day waiver to resubmitted motions? >> action items from the GNSO Council meeting in Singapore >> stand at this time? >> >> >> >> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> * >> >> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| >> www.LRRLaw.com * >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> * * >> >> >> >> *From:*martinsutton at hsbc.com >> >> [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] >> *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 at hsbc.com >> >> 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. >> > > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **?** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > */gsshatan at lawabel.com /* > > *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com > /* > > */www.lawabel.com /* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:39:44 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:39:44 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not our issue to bring to the Council. Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential concerns about the issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path. On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council. > > But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am reporting > it as something we did not take on and kicked back. I think that if the > CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt with by the G-Council, it makes the > most sense for them to make their case to the G-Council themselves. > > As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct action for > the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication that the proper > approach to the SCI is through the GNSO Council. > > avri > > On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote: > > Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO > Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either the > next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a Council > member and Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can > bring up this issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel > I obliged to state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though it is ? seems > to raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C > self-governance that go beyond the SCI?s remit and that will most likely > require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council > determination, or both. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > > From: Greg Shatan > > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 > To: Avri Doria > > Cc: " >" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an > amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover > SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather > than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding > "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise from that can > only be imagined. > > Greg > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such >> consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group >> looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder >> activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as >> 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a >> process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG >> charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of >> a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and >> business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be >> the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO >> Review. >> >> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to >> present cases to the SCI. >> >> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to >> receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational >> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >> Council can make such requests. >> >> >> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the >> staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. >> >> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template >> to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C >> had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not >> and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we >> would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. >> >> thanks >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Hello Anne and everyone, >> >> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting >> and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by >> their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own >> charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can >> review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO >> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval >> of an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The >> GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards >> to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as >> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. >> Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s >> voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and that >> a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one >> group. >> >> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises >> would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for >> and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider >> initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if >> this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each >> group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose >> such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do >> as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs >> wish to revise their own charters in the same way). >> >> As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items >> noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing >> Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the >> GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will >> be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on >> the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of other >> projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda >> for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the >> next one. >> >> I hope this helps! >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> >> From: , Anne > > >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >> To: "> >" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > >> Cc: Mary Wong > >, Julie Hedlund < >> julie.hedlund at icann.org >> >, 'Avri Doria' >> > >> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear SCI members, >> >> >> >> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business >> Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must >> come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >> >> >> >> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, >> Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to >> prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests mentioned >> in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) >> whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day >> advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft >> language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to >> see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri. >> >> >> >> So the questions for staff are: >> >> >> >> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the >> request must be submitted by the BC itself? >> >> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day >> waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting >> in Singapore stand at this time? >> >> >> >> 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 at LRRLaw.com ** >> | www.LRRLaw.com * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com >> [ >> mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >> ] >> *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 at hsbc.com >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan at lawabel.com > * > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com > * > > *www.lawabel.com * > > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **?* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan at lawabel.com * *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * *www.lawabel.com * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Feb 26 18:13:54 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 02:13:54 +0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> Message-ID: <54EF6262.9050701@acm.org> Hi, I am also not judging the issue or its possible importance. avri On 27-Feb-15 12:39, Greg Shatan wrote: > I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not our > issue to bring to the Council. > > Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential concerns > about the issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path. > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi, > > Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council. > > But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am > reporting it as something we did not take on and kicked back. I > think that if the CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt with by the > G-Council, it makes the most sense for them to make their case to > the G-Council themselves. > > As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct > action for the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication > that the proper approach to the SCI is through the GNSO Council. > > avri > > On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote: >> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The >> GNSO Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for >> either the next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps >> Avri (as a Council member and Council liaison to the SCI) with >> staff support (as needed) can bring up this issue at the >> appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel I obliged to >> state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though it is ? seems to >> raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C >> self-governance that go beyond the SCI?s remit and that will most >> likely require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or >> Council determination, or both. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> From: Greg Shatan >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 >> To: Avri Doria >> Cc: "" >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - >> Vote switching >> >> This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I >> think an amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating >> Procedures (which cover SG/C voting issues) would be a more >> elegant and consistent solution, rather than having each SG/C >> amend its own charter with its own rules regarding >> "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise >> from that can only be imagined. >> >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any >> such consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review >> as that is the group looking at how we organize our >> corner of bottom-up multistakeolder activities. >> Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as >> 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies >> are approved in a process defined by the SIC complemented >> by conditions defined in the SG charter. I do agree that >> there is complexity in dealing with the issue of a large >> corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, >> goals and business lines having only a vote in only one >> SG. Conveniently this may be the right time to get such >> considerations put on the table for the GNSO Review. >> >> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has >> standing to present cases to the SCI. >> >>> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', >>> the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group >>> affected by the process/operational change concerned. >>> Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>> Council can make such requests. >> >> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne >> refered to and the staff is working on. Mary, thanks for >> the update. >> >> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit >> such a template to the SCI. We actually had the specific >> discussion on whether SG and C had standing. As the SCI >> charter indicates we decided that they did not and they >> needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I >> am sure we would all agree that the SG/C are not >> chartered by the GNSO Council. >> >> thanks >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Hello Anne and everyone, >>> >>> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, >>> issues of voting and membership in each Stakeholder >>> Group and Constituency are determined by their >>> respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves >>> its own charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely >>> provide that the Board can review a group?s charter >>> periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO >>> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, >>> amendment or approval of an SG?s or C?s charter by a >>> body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO Operating >>> Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common >>> standards to be followed by each SG and C in its charter >>> and operations, such as transparency, accountability, >>> inclusiveness and representation. Accordingly, the >>> Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s >>> voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s >>> charter, and that a legal or natural person may not be a >>> voting member of more than one group. >>> >>> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that >>> Martin raises would seem to be something that the SGs >>> and Cs will need to work out for and amongst themselves. >>> As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider >>> initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this >>> point, to see if this is a matter that warrants either a >>> revision of or addition to each group?s charter. In >>> addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose >>> such an update to its own charter, which it is of course >>> at liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance >>> (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish to revise their >>> own charters in the same way). >>> >>> As to your second question, staff has begun working on >>> the action items noted in Singapore,, as we offered to >>> do, and we will shortly be providing Avri with the basic >>> template that she can use to present the topic to the >>> GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do >>> not know if it will be on the Council?s agenda for its >>> March meeting, as that will depend on the Council >>> chairs? determination as to urgency and deadlines of >>> other projects and topics. I expect that if it does not >>> make it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it will >>> likely be on the list for inclusion at the next one. >>> >>> I hope this helps! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >>> To: "" >>> >>> Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund >>> , 'Avri Doria' >>> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> >>> >>> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of >>> the Business Constituency Charter Review Team. I am >>> wondering whether this request must come officially >>> from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >>> >>> >>> >>> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery >>> of the SCI report, Avri volunteered to draft a >>> template for GNSO requests to SCI and to prepare >>> drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? >>> requests mentioned in the SCI report, that is (1) >>> friendly amendments to motions and (2) whether or >>> not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of >>> the ten day advance notice for motions. I >>> understand that Avri will be reviewing draft >>> language for these requests with the Council. It >>> may make sense for us to see a draft and provide >>> some comments, but that is up to Avri. >>> >>> >>> >>> So the questions for staff are: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note >>> below) that the request must be submitted by the BC >>> itself? >>> >>> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and >>> ?applicability of 10 day waiver to resubmitted >>> motions? action items from the GNSO Council meeting >>> in Singapore stand at this time? >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 | (F) >>> 520.879.4725 * >>> >>> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.com >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * * >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*martinsutton at hsbc.com >>> [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] >>> *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 at hsbc.com >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Gregory S. Shatan **?** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* >> >> *Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* >> >> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* >> >> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 >> >> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 >> >> */gsshatan at lawabel.com/* >> >> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com/* >> >> */www.lawabel.com /* >> > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **?** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > */gsshatan at lawabel.com /* > > *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com > /* > > */www.lawabel.com /* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Fri Feb 27 15:38:10 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:38:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks again, Avri and Greg ? one additional point then is that, in sending the request back to the BC it may be helpful to add that they can also raise the issue with the GNSO Review Working Party through their representatives on that group. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org From: Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39 To: Avri Doria Cc: "" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not our issue > to bring to the Council. > > Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential concerns about the > issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path. > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council. >> >> But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am reporting it >> as something we did not take on and kicked back. I think that if the CSG/BC >> wants this issue to be dealt with by the G-Council, it makes the most sense >> for them to make their case to the G-Council themselves. >> >> As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct action for the >> SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication that the proper approach >> to the SCI is through the GNSO Council. >> >> avri >> >> On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO >>> Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either the next >>> or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a Council member and >>> Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can bring up this >>> issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel I obliged to >>> state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though it is ? seems to raise >>> broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance >>> that go beyond the SCI?s remit and that will most likely require >>> consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council determination, or >>> both. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Greg Shatan >> > >>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 >>> To: Avri Doria >>> > >>> Cc: ">> >" >>> >> > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>>> This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an >>>> amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover >>>> SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather >>>> than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding >>>> "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise from that can >>>> only be imagined. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria >>> > wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such >>>>> consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group >>>>> looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder >>>>> activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as >>>>> 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in >>>>> a process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG >>>>> charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of >>>>> a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals >>>>> and business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this >>>>> may be the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the >>>>> GNSO Review. >>>>> >>>>> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to >>>>> present cases to the SCI. >>>>> >>>>>> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to >>>>>> receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational >>>>>> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the >>>>>> GNSO Council can make such requests. >>>>> >>>>> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the >>>>> staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update. >>>>> >>>>> The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template >>>>> to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C >>>>> had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not >>>>> and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure >>>>> we would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >>>>>> Hello Anne and everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting >>>>>> and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined >>>>>> by their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own >>>>>> charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can >>>>>> review a group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO >>>>>> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval >>>>>> of an SG?s or C?s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The >>>>>> GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards >>>>>> to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as >>>>>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. >>>>>> Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member?s >>>>>> voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s charter, and >>>>>> that a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than >>>>>> one group. >>>>>> >>>>>> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises >>>>>> would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for >>>>>> and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership >>>>>> consider initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, >>>>>> to see if this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition >>>>>> to each group?s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish >>>>>> to propose such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at >>>>>> liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of >>>>>> whether other SG/Cs wish to revise their own charters in the same way). >>>>>> >>>>>> As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items >>>>>> noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be >>>>>> providing Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the >>>>>> topic to the GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not >>>>>> know if it will be on the Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that >>>>>> will depend on the Council chairs? determination as to urgency and >>>>>> deadlines of other projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make >>>>>> it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list >>>>>> for inclusion at the next one. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this helps! >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Mary >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary Wong >>>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >>>>>> To: ">>>>> >" >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong >>>>> >, Julie Hedlund >>>>>> >>>>> >, 'Avri Doria' >>>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business >>>>>>> Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request >>>>>>> must come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, >>>>>>> Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to >>>>>>> prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate issue? requests >>>>>>> mentioned in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions >>>>>>> and (2) whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of >>>>>>> the ten day advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be >>>>>>> reviewing draft language for these requests with the Council. It may >>>>>>> make sense for us to see a draft and provide some comments, but that is >>>>>>> up to Avri. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the questions for staff are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the >>>>>>> request must be submitted by the BC itself? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and ?applicability of 10 day >>>>>>> waiver to resubmitted motions? action items from the GNSO Council >>>>>>> meeting in Singapore stand at this time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>>>> ] >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> Emailmartinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Websitewww.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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan ? Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.lawabel.com >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory S. Shatan ? Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>>> Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet >>>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>> www.lawabel.com >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 27 03:03:40 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:03:40 +0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> Message-ID: <54EFDE8C.3060307@acm.org> Hi, True. that meeting is Tuesday at 20 UTC. avri On 27-Feb-15 23:38, Mary Wong wrote: > Thanks again, Avri and Greg ? one additional point then is that, in > sending the request back to the BC it may be helpful to add that they > can also raise the issue with the GNSO Review Working Party through > their representatives on that group. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > From: Greg Shatan > > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39 > To: Avri Doria > > Cc: " >" > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not > our issue to bring to the Council. > > Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential > concerns about the issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path. > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi, > > Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council. > > But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I > am reporting it as something we did not take on and kicked > back. I think that if the CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt > with by the G-Council, it makes the most sense for them to > make their case to the G-Council themselves. > > As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct > action for the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an > indication that the proper approach to the SCI is through the > GNSO Council. > > avri > > On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote: >> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! >> The GNSO Review topic is one that I believe will be on the >> agenda for either the next or following Council meeting. As >> such, perhaps Avri (as a Council member and Council liaison >> to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can bring up this >> issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel >> I obliged to state that Greg?s latter point ? logical though >> it is ? seems to raise broader questions concerning the >> appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance that go beyond the >> SCI?s remit and that will most likely require consideration >> either as part of the GNSO Review or Council determination, >> or both. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> From: Greg Shatan >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 >> To: Avri Doria >> Cc: "" >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - >> Vote switching >> >> This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, >> I think an amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO >> Operating Procedures (which cover SG/C voting issues) >> would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather >> than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own >> rules regarding "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent >> results that could arise from that can only be imagined. >> >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, >> any such consideration more likely belongs in the >> GNSO Review as that is the group looking at how we >> organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder >> activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved >> by the Board as 'negotiated' between the SIC and the >> SGs. Constituencies are approved in a process >> defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined >> in the SG charter. I do agree that there is >> complexity in dealing with the issue of a large >> corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, >> employees, goals and business lines having only a >> vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be the >> right time to get such considerations put on the >> table for the GNSO Review. >> >> On a technicality. we have specific rules about who >> has standing to present cases to the SCI. >> >>> For items that are submitted for review 'on >>> request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input >>> from the group affected by the process/operational >>> change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group >>> chartered by the GNSO Council can make such requests. >> >> The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne >> refered to and the staff is working on. Mary, thanks >> for the update. >> >> The second line refers to the issue of standing to >> submit such a template to the SCI. We actually had >> the specific discussion on whether SG and C had >> standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided >> that they did not and they needed to bring issues in >> through the GNSO Council. I am sure we would all >> agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO >> Council. >> >> thanks >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Hello Anne and everyone, >>> >>> As an integral part of the bottom up consensus >>> model, issues of voting and membership in each >>> Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by >>> their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and >>> approves its own charter (as appropriate) and the >>> Bylaws merely provide that the Board can review a >>> group?s charter periodically. It therefore follows >>> that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not provide >>> for the review, amendment or approval of an SG?s or >>> C?s charter by a body other than that particular >>> SG/C. The GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, >>> prescribe certain common standards to be followed by >>> each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as >>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and >>> representation. Accordingly, the Operating >>> Procedures also specify that a group member?s voting >>> rights must be spelled out clearly in the group?s >>> charter, and that a legal or natural person may not >>> be a voting member of more than one group. >>> >>> In line with the above-noted principles, the issue >>> that Martin raises would seem to be something that >>> the SGs and Cs will need to work out for and amongst >>> themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC >>> leadership consider initiating a discussion with >>> other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if this is >>> a matter that warrants either a revision of or >>> addition to each group?s charter. In addition, the >>> BC itself may internally wish to propose such an >>> update to its own charter, which it is of course at >>> liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance >>> (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish to revise >>> their own charters in the same way). >>> >>> As to your second question, staff has begun working >>> on the action items noted in Singapore,, as we >>> offered to do, and we will shortly be providing Avri >>> with the basic template that she can use to present >>> the topic to the GNSO Council for its consideration. >>> At the moment, I do not know if it will be on the >>> Council?s agenda for its March meeting, as that will >>> depend on the Council chairs? determination as to >>> urgency and deadlines of other projects and topics. >>> I expect that if it does not make it on to the >>> agenda for the March meeting, it will likely be on >>> the list for inclusion at the next one. >>> >>> I hope this helps! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >>> (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 >>> To: "" >>> >>> Cc: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund >>> , 'Avri Doria' >>> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> >>> >>> Below is a written request to SCI from a member >>> of the Business Constituency Charter Review >>> Team. I am wondering whether this request must >>> come officially from the BC in order to be >>> considered by SCI. >>> >>> >>> >>> Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after >>> delivery of the SCI report, Avri volunteered to >>> draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to >>> prepare drafts for Council of the two ?immediate >>> issue? requests mentioned in the SCI report, >>> that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and >>> (2) whether or not resubmitted motions are >>> eligible for waiver of the ten day advance >>> notice for motions. I understand that Avri will >>> be reviewing draft language for these requests >>> with the Council. It may make sense for us to >>> see a draft and provide some comments, but that >>> is up to Avri. >>> >>> >>> >>> So the questions for staff are: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see >>> note below) that the request must be submitted >>> by the BC itself? >>> >>> 2. Where do the ?friendly amendment? and >>> ?applicability of 10 day waiver to resubmitted >>> motions? action items from the GNSO Council >>> meeting in Singapore stand at this time? >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 | (F) >>> 520.879.4725 * >>> >>> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.com >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * * >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*martinsutton at hsbc.com >>> [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] >>> *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 at hsbc.com >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Gregory S. Shatan **?** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* >> >> *Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* >> >> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* >> >> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 >> >> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 >> >> */gsshatan at lawabel.com/* >> >> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com/* >> >> */www.lawabel.com /* >> > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **?** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > */gsshatan at lawabel.com /* > > *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com > /* > > */www.lawabel.com /* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: