<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I am also not judging the issue or its possible importance.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Feb-15 12:39, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTXxzM+kivW34cWOntP8mQ=LKPRwo4Fnx+d=8uvydEP=Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not
our issue to bring to the Council.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span></span>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.<br>
<br>
On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div> Hi,<br>
<br>
Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div>On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Mary</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Mary Wong</div>
<div>Senior Policy Director</div>
<div>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names &
Numbers (ICANN)</div>
<div>Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</div>
<div>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div><span>From: </span> Greg Shatan <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span>Date: </span> Thursday, February 26, 2015 at
19:53<br>
<span>To: </span> Avri Doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>><br>
<span>Cc: </span> "<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at
6:43 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div>Hi,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
On a technicality. we have specific rules
about who has standing to present cases to
the SCI. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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. </blockquote>
<br>
The first line refers, obliquely to the
template Anne refered to and the staff is
working on. Mary, thanks for the update.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
thanks<span><br>
avri</span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hello Anne and everyone,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope this helps!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Mary</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Mary Wong</div>
<div>Senior Policy Director</div>
<div>Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names & Numbers
(ICANN)</div>
<div>Telephone: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892"
value="+16035744892"
target="_blank"> +1 603
574 4892</a></div>
<div>Email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div><span>From: </span><Aikman-Scalese>,
Anne <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</a>><br>
<span>Date: </span>Thursday,
February 26, 2015 at 15:42<br>
<span>To: </span>"<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>Cc: </span>Mary Wong <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>>,
Julie Hedlund <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>>,
'Avri Doria' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>><br>
<span>Subject: </span>FW:
Request to the SCI - Vote
switching<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear
SCI members,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>So
the questions for
staff are:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p><span><span>1.<span>
</span></span></span><span>Do
I need to tell Martin
Sutton (see note
below) that the
request must be
submitted by the BC
itself?</span></p>
<p><span><span>2.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank
you,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Anne</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="7"
width="67">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span><img
moz-do-not-send="true" height="62" width="150"></span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
<td width="355">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Anne
E.
Aikman-Scalese,
Of Counsel</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Lewis
Roca
Rothgerber LLP
| </span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span>One
South Church
Avenue Suite
700 | Tucson,
Arizona
85701-1611</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span>(T)
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:520.629.4428" value="+15206294428" target="_blank">
520.629.4428</a>
| (F) <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:520.879.4725" value="+15208794725" target="_blank">
520.879.4725</a></span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="Email User" target="_blank">AAikman@LRRLaw.com</a></span></u></b><b><span>
| <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/" title="Lewis and Roca Webpage"
target="_blank"><span>www.LRRLaw.com</span></a></span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span></span></b><span></span></p>
<br>
</td>
<td width="25">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">
martinsutton@hsbc.com</a>
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">mailto:martinsutton@hsbc.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday,
February 26, 2015
12:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Request to the SCI -
Vote switching</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear
Anne,</span><br>
<br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<br>
<span>Kind regards,<br>
</span><br>
<span>Martin</span> <br>
<b><span>Martin C SUTTON
</span></b><br>
<span>Manager, Group
Fraud Risk &
Intelligence <br>
Global Security &
Fraud Risk<br>
Level 8,1 Canada
Square,Canary
Wharf,London,E14
5AB,United Kingdom</span>
</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>__________________________________________________________________</span></p>
<table
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
width="25%"><br>
</td>
<td
width="75%"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>Phone</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>+44
(0)207 991
8074</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>Mobile</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>+44
(0)777 4556680</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>Email</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"><span>martinsutton@hsbc.com</span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span>Website</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.hsbc.com/" target="_blank"><span>www.hsbc.com</span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<span>__________________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Protect
our
environment -
please only
print this if
you have to!</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<hr width="100%"></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-----------------------------------------<br>
SAVE PAPER - THINK
BEFORE YOU PRINT!<br>
<br>
This E-mail is
confidential. <br>
<br>
It may also be legally
privileged. If you are
not the addressee you
may not copy,<br>
forward, disclose or
use any part of it. If
you have received this
message in error,<br>
please delete it and
all copies from your
system and notify the
sender immediately by<br>
return E-mail.<br>
<br>
Internet
communications cannot
be guaranteed to be
timely secure, error
or virus-free.<br>
The sender does not
accept liability for
any errors or
omissions.</p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr><br>
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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<p><b><span>Gregory S. Shatan </span></b><b><span>ï</span></b><b><span> </span></b><b><span>Abelman
Frayne & Schwab</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Partner</span></b><span><b><span> </span></b></span><b><span>|
IP | Technology | Media | Internet</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>666 Third Avenue | New York, NY
10017-5621</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Direct</span></b><span> <span> </span></span><span>212-885-9253<span> </span><b>|<span> </span></b></span><b><span>Main</span></b><span><span> </span></span><span>212-949-9022</span><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Fax</span></b><span> <span> </span></span><span>212-949-9190<span> </span><b>|</b><span> </span></span><b><span>Cell<span> </span></span></b><span>917-816-6428</span><span></span></p>
<p><b><i><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>ICANN-related:<span> </span><i><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a></i></span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><i><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lawabel.com/"
target="_blank">www.lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span> </blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<p><b><span>Gregory S. Shatan </span></b><b><span>ï</span></b><b><span> </span></b><b><span>Abelman
Frayne
& Schwab</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Partner</span></b><span><b><span> </span></b></span><b><span>|
IP |
Technology | Media | Internet</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621</span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Direct</span></b><span> <span> </span></span><span>212-885-9253<span> </span><b>|<span> </span></b></span><b><span>Main</span></b><span><span> </span></span><span>212-949-9022</span><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>Fax</span></b><span> <span> </span></span><span>212-949-9190<span> </span><b>|</b><span> </span></span><b><span>Cell<span> </span></span></b><span>917-816-6428</span><span></span></p>
<p><b><i><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com" target="_blank">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><span>ICANN-related:<span> </span><i><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a></i></span></b><span></span></p>
<p><b><i><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lawabel.com/" target="_blank">www.lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span></span></p>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>