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

Fri Feb 27 02:14:04 UTC 2015

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 <mary.wong at icann.org> 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 <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
> 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 <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 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: <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 “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 <AAikman at LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com
>> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com
>> <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 **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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>

-- 

*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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <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/20150226/e3a4d58c/attachment.html>