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

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Fri Feb 27 02:10:31 UTC 2015

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 Greg¹s latter point ­ logical though it is ­ seems to raise
broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance
that go beyond the SCI¹s remit and that will most likely require
consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council determination, or


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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date:  Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53
To:  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Cc:  "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote

> 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 <avri at acm.org> 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 group¹s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO
>>> Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval of
>>> an SG¹s or C¹s 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 member¹s voting rights
>>> must be spelled out clearly in the group¹s 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
>>> group¹s 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 Council¹s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on the
>>> Council chairs¹ 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 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42
>>> To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund
>>> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>
>>> 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 ³immediate issue² 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 ³friendly amendment² and ³applicability of 10 day
>>>> waiver to resubmitted motions² 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 <tel:520.629.4428>  | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>
>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://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 <mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com>
>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com <http://www.hsbc.com/>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> 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 ï 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 <http://www.lawabel.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150227/610ae52c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150227/610ae52c/smime.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc mailing list