[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Feb 27 03:03:40 UTC 2015
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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39
> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>"
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>
> 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 <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/b3befe6d/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list