[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Feb 26 18:13:54 UTC 2015
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 <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> 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 <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 <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 “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 <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
>>>
>>> Email
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> martinsutton at hsbc.com
>>>
>>> Website
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.hsbc.com <http://www.hsbc.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if
>>> you have to!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
>>>
>>> This E-mail is confidential.
>>>
>>> It may also be legally privileged. If you are not
>>> the addressee you may not copy,
>>> forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
>>> received this message in error,
>>> please delete it and all copies from your system and
>>> notify the sender immediately by
>>> return E-mail.
>>>
>>> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be
>>> timely secure, error or virus-free.
>>> The sender does not accept liability for any errors
>>> or omissions.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This message and any attachments are intended only
>>> for the use of the individual or entity to which
>>> they are addressed. If the reader of this message or
>>> an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
>>> employee or agent responsible for delivering the
>>> message or attachment to the intended recipient you
>>> are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>>> distribution or copying of this message or any
>>> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
>>> received this communication in error, please notify
>>> us immediately by replying to the sender. The
>>> information transmitted in this message and any
>>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for
>>> the personal and confidential use of the intended
>>> recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
>>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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/>/*
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto: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/20150227/847018ca/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list