From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Sat Mar 7 22:08:01 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:08:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B704737@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54EF06FD.1060904@acm.org> <54EF381C.3090804@acm.org> <54EFDE8C.3060307@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B405@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Mary. Based on previous experience, I wonder whether we can actually respond without some kind of consensus call among SCI members. Although Avri and Greg appear to agree regarding this procedural issue, there has been no full SCI discussion of the issue and no consensus call regarding this request. I think we have to be very careful, particularly after Avri's previous observations that decisions should not be made quickly or without thorough discussion. This reply will clearly be a formal reply from SCI to a member of the Charter committee of the BC - perhaps you should draft it and send out for consensus call? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D058E8.80EA9AA0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:06 AM To: Avri Doria; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman Cc: Julie Hedlund Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hello Anne - do let us know if you'd like staff to assist with replying to Martin/the BC. Thanks and 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: Avri Doria > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 22:03 To: ">" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching 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 > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39 To: Avri Doria > Cc: ">" > 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 > 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 > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 To: Avri Doria > Cc: ">" > 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 > 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: , Anne > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 To: ">" > Cc: Mary Wong >, Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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 ? 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan ? 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 ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Sat Mar 7 22:19:21 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:19:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D057F4.D2F6F0E0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D057F4.D2F6F0E0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From angie at webgroup.com Mon Mar 9 15:52:35 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:52:35 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Cc: Angie Graves , "" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , Ron Andruff Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , 'Angie Graves' Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ------------------------------ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com ] * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" <*AAikman at LRRLaw.com* > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ------------------------------ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ------------------------------ * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT * To: *Martin C SUTTON * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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* * | **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* __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Mar 9 20:11:42 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:11:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne , Mary Wong , "" Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, > > I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and > the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's > pending response, I defer to her. > > I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say > that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, > and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the > potential for abuse of voting rights. > > Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes > and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either > by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing > discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the > Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in > Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the > request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. > > I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter > Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. > My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first > inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of > business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests > for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas > for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue > will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. > > Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Angie > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves , "" > , Julie Hedlund , > Mary Wong , Ron Andruff > > > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. > > 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! > > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC > Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund > , "" > , 'Ron Andruff' , > 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > > > Martin, > Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding > your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. > > Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be > circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a > consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At > present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with > the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will > likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date > on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members > of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the > BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI > list. > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > > > From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, > > As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to > meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with > the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. > > 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 > Websitewww.hsbc.com > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! > > > > > > > > From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC > To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > > > > > Thank you Anne, much appreciated. > > Martin Sutton > Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence > Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 > Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ********************************* > > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > > ********************************* > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] > Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT > To: Martin C SUTTON > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 > Websitewww.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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Mar 10 10:43:42 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:43:42 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Dear Angie and everyone, > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. > > Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. > > Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 > To: Anne , Mary Wong , "" > Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > >> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >> >> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >> >> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >> >> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. >> >> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> Cc: Angie Graves , "" , Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , Ron Andruff >> >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund , "" , 'Ron Andruff' , 'Angie Graves' >> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> >> Martin, >> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >> >> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >> >> Martin Sutton >> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >> Sent from my BlackBerry >> >> ********************************* >> >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> >> ********************************* >> >> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >> Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >> To: Martin C SUTTON >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Tue Mar 10 16:26:56 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:26:56 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Template SCI requests for Council review submitted Message-ID: Dear all, The two template requests that were action items for Avri and staff from the GNSO?s Singapore sessions have been completed and sent to the GNSO Council for its consideration. They have also been posted to the GNSO website: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/gnso-sci-review-overlap-waiver-resubmission-05mar15 -en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/gnso-sci-review-motions-05mar15-en.pdf. We expect that they will be on the Council?s agenda for its next meeting on 19 March 2015, and we will provide the SCI with an update following the Council?s deliberations. Thanks and 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Mar 10 17:57:14 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:57:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Template SCI requests for Council review submitted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B74710E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Many thanks Mary ? very helpful. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D05B20.F79320C0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:27 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Template SCI requests for Council review submitted Dear all, The two template requests that were action items for Avri and staff from the GNSO?s Singapore sessions have been completed and sent to the GNSO Council for its consideration. They have also been posted to the GNSO website: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/gnso-sci-review-overlap-waiver-resubmission-05mar15-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/gnso-sci-review-motions-05mar15-en.pdf. We expect that they will be on the Council?s agenda for its next meeting on 19 March 2015, and we will provide the SCI with an update following the Council?s deliberations. Thanks and 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 ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Mar 16 20:11:04 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:11:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong Cc: "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > Hi, > > I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion > was headed in an agreeable direction. > > I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t > become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I > don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly > don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO > Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the > council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during > the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. > > Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? > I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be > helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed > the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> Dear Angie and everyone, >> >> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines >> its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general >> reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up >> ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the >> BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and >> the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO >> SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part >> the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is >> needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the >> ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be >> done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including >> the BC's. >> >> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we >> propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily >> the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it >> may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if >> you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 >> UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. >> >> Thanks and 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: Angie Graves >> Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >> To: Anne , Mary Wong , >> "" >> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff >> >> Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >>> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >>> >>> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >>> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >>> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >>> >>> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I >>> say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has >>> raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution >>> to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >>> >>> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >>> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >>> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is >>> one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) >>> referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter >>> review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies >>> outside of the SCI's scope. >>> >>> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >>> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way >>> forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this >>> issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its >>> first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on >>> the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the >>> constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path >>> forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC >>> membership. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Angie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: >>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>> Cc: Angie Graves , "" >>> , Julie Hedlund , >>> Mary Wong , Ron Andruff >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne, >>> >>> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >>> >>> 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 >>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________ >>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >>> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund >>> , "" >>> , 'Ron Andruff' , >>> 'Angie Graves' >>> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin, >>> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >>> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >>> >>> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be >>> circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >>> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >>> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >>> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, >>> we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than >>> achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and >>> brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my >>> knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the >>> discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>> ] >>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> Dear Anne, >>> >>> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >>> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with >>> the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >>> >>> 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 >>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________ >>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >>> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >> > >>> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >>> >>> Martin Sutton >>> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >>> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >>> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >>> Sent from my BlackBerry >>> >>> ********************************* >>> >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> >>> ********************************* >>> >>> >>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >>> Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >>> To: Martin C SUTTON >>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 >>> Websitewww.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. >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> ************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> ************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Mon Mar 16 21:07:59 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:07:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie > agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as > sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne > as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would > make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form > of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. > > On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that > each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include > procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous > structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current > structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency > structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN > Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each > existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this > took place in early 2009. > > Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. > > > Dear Martin, > > Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on > Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has > discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised > concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, > and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the > GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue > lies outside the remit of the SCI. > > The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the > effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working > Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder > Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, > for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is > based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, > scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is > therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, > with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the > current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of > each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). > > Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by > the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to > happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the > BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a > revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its > internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external > input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its > decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could > reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be > developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs > are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each > SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It > may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within > the broader GNSO community. > > In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating > Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles > that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. > Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, > their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear > (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating > Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based > bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to > agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in > the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be > added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. > > Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may > also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party > that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through > the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial > report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in > mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments > that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the > GNSO as well. > > I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. > Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, > please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support > the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and > processes. > > With best regards, > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > 2015 Chair, SCI > > > > > From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 > To: Mary Wong > Cc: "" , > Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > Hi, > > I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the > discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. > > I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue > doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted > by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy > issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the > scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would > be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have > been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled > by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. > > Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as > well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. > May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is > indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter > revision. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Dear Angie and everyone, > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying > very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) > defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more > general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based > bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best > determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations > mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the > question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a > substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more > uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C > can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted > by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives > on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. > > Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which > we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is > necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, > nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please > reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none > is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as > noted herein. > > Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 > To: Anne , Mary Wong , "< > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" > Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < > randruff at rnapartners.com> > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, > > I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC > and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary > Wong's pending response, I defer to her. > > I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I > say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has > raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution > to the potential for abuse of voting rights. > > Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council > processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been > identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO > Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is > one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) > referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter > review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies > outside of the SCI's scope. > > I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC > Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way > forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this > issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its > first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on > the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by > the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path > forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC > membership. > > Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Angie > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves , "" > , Julie Hedlund , > Mary Wong , Ron Andruff > > > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. > > 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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email > *martinsutton at hsbc.com* Website*www.hsbc.com* > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! > > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC > Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , > 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > ------------------------------ > > > > Martin, > Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list > regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. > > Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will > be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a > consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At > present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement > with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, > we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than > achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and > brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my > knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the > discussion of this matter on the SCI list. > 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* > * | **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM > * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, > > As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to > meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations > with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. > > 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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email > *martinsutton at hsbc.com* Website*www.hsbc.com* > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! > > > > > > > > From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC > To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" <*AAikman at LRRLaw.com* > > > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > ------------------------------ > > > > > Thank you Anne, much appreciated. > > Martin Sutton > Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence > Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 > Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ********************************* > > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > > ********************************* > > ------------------------------ > * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] > * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT > * To: *Martin C SUTTON > * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. > 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* > * | **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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email > *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. > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > ------------------------------ > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From angie at webgroup.com Mon Mar 16 23:22:59 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:22:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks to Anne and Mary for composing the response. I agree with Greg's comments, and have a few more: It would be helpful to clarify Martin's status as representative, because the language in the SCI letter may be misinterpreted-- Martin wrote to the SCI as a representative of the BC's Charter Review Team, not as representative of the entire BC. Referencing his request as "raised by the BC" gives a different context to the suggestions offered to him in SCI's response. I mention this because, as a fellow member of the BC, the issue Martin raised with the SCI has not yet been shared with the BC membership at large, any maybe not with any BC member outside of the BC's Charter Review Team. A sentence suggesting that the BC's Charter Review Team share this issue with the BC membership, so that the BC can agree to and support a course of action, may be a simple fix. One other note: I suggest removing the sentence about the timeliness of raising the issue with the broader GNSO community. Firstly, this sentence may be misinterpreted by Martin as direction to him to raise the issue with the GNSO community, as he raised the issue with us. Also, from a BC perspective, the item on Martin's plate most deserving of priority and time is completing the charter revision work being done now by the BC's Charter Review Team. In that context, this issue is a drain on his time and attention. I believe that the BC will be most receptive to the issue if it is raised alongside delivery of the revised charter. Nit: representatives on the group would sound better as representatives of the group Thank you, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. > > I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot > generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council > or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is > neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. > > However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section > 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting > member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section > of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given > the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The > GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, > this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and > which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate > deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the > Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As > you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number > of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this > relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for > the Council to take up. > > Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better > forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the > SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and > decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard > against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a > rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend > GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the > SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. > > It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter > (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the > Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the > issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is > referred to us by the Council. > > I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC > consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of > problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are > consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are > friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I > don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are > undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an > increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. > > Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, > and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those > options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be > fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. > > Greg > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as >> sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne >> as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would >> make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form >> of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. >> >> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that >> each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include >> procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous >> structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current >> structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency >> structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN >> Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each >> existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this >> took place in early 2009. >> >> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >> >> >> Dear Martin, >> >> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has >> discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised >> concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, >> and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the >> GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue >> lies outside the remit of the SCI. >> >> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, >> for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is >> based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, >> scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is >> therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, >> with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the >> current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of >> each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >> >> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised >> by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it >> to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the >> BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a >> revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its >> internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external >> input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its >> decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could >> reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be >> developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs >> are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each >> SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It >> may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within >> the broader GNSO community. >> >> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating >> Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles >> that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. >> Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, >> their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear >> (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating >> Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based >> bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to >> agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in >> the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be >> added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. >> >> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may >> also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party >> that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through >> the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial >> report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in >> mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments >> that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the >> GNSO as well. >> >> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. >> Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the >> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, >> please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support >> the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and >> processes. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> 2015 Chair, SCI >> >> >> >> >> From: Amr Elsadr >> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >> To: Mary Wong >> Cc: "" , >> Ron Andruff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> Hi, >> >> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the >> discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. >> >> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue >> doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted >> by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy >> issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the >> scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would >> be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have >> been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled >> by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. >> >> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is >> indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter >> revision. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Dear Angie and everyone, >> >> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more >> general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based >> bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best >> determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations >> mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the >> question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a >> substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more >> uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C >> can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted >> by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives >> on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >> >> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, >> which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >> is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as >> noted herein. >> >> Thanks and 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: Angie Graves >> Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >> To: Anne , Mary Wong , "< >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" >> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < >> randruff at rnapartners.com> >> Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >> >> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >> >> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when >> I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has >> raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution >> to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >> >> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is >> one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) >> referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter >> review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies >> outside of the SCI's scope. >> >> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way >> forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this >> issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its >> first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on >> the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by >> the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path >> forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC >> membership. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> Cc: Angie Graves , "" >> , Julie Hedlund , >> Mary Wong , Ron Andruff >> >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >> >> 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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email >> *martinsutton at hsbc.com* Website*www.hsbc.com* >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >> >> >> >> >> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < >> julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , >> 'Angie Graves' >> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Martin, >> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >> >> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will >> be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, >> we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than >> achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and >> brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my >> knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the >> discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >> 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* * | * >> *www.LRRLaw.com* >> >> >> >> >> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >> ] >> * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >> * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >> >> 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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email >> *martinsutton at hsbc.com* Website*www.hsbc.com* >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" <*AAikman at LRRLaw.com* >> > >> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >> >> Martin Sutton >> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >> Sent from my BlackBerry >> >> ********************************* >> >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> >> ********************************* >> >> ------------------------------ >> * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >> * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >> * To: *Martin C SUTTON >> * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >> 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* * | * >> *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 8074Mobile+44 (0)777 4556680Email >> *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. >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> ------------------------------ >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Mar 16 23:25:51 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:25:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong Cc: "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. > > I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate > our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a > "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since > it is chartered by ICANN. > > However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section > 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting > member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of > the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the > increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO > Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this > seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which > the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I > think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview > because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge > later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in > the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of > those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. > > Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better > forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, > which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a > common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against > vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would > be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating > Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships > would just delay consideration. > > It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or > email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. > We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should > say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the > Council. > > I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult > with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that > cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and > results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to > "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this > should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter > review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic > problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. > > Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and > include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If > the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC > chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. > > Greg > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched >> out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI >> chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense >> to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email >> rather than as a separate letter would work too. >> >> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that >> each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures >> for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, >> and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure >> with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG >> Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took >> place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency >> had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early >> 2009. >> >> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >> >> >> Dear Martin, >> >> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed >> the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the >> possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we >> agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or >> procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the >> remit of the SCI. >> >> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for >> the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on >> each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, >> review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that >> group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised >> by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to >> prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section >> 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >> >> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by >> the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to >> happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s >> consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision >> of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal >> deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and >> also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to >> the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other >> SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the >> issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be >> reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is >> supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn >> out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO >> community. >> >> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures >> prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure >> representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, >> while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their >> participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see >> Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In >> line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a >> substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the >> potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm >> or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating >> Procedures. >> >> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may >> also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that >> is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC >> representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of >> the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so >> there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include >> suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. >> >> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should >> you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the >> GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not >> hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s >> efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> 2015 Chair, SCI >> >> >> >> >> From: Amr Elsadr >> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >> To: Mary Wong >> Cc: "" , >> Ron Andruff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion >>> was headed in an agreeable direction. >>> >>> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t >>> become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, >>> I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I >>> honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of >>> the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful >>> for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked >>> up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s >>> SGs/Cs. >>> >>> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >>> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >>> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is >>> indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter >>> revision. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Angie and everyone, >>>> >>>> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >>>> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >>>> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more >>>> general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based >>>> bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best >>>> determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations >>>> mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the >>>> question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a >>>> substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more >>>> uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C >>>> can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted >>>> by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives >>>> on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >>>> >>>> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which >>>> we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >>>> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >>>> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >>>> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >>>> is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted >>>> herein. >>>> >>>> Thanks and 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: Angie Graves >>>> Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >>>> To: Anne , Mary Wong , >>>> "" >>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff >>>> >>>> Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>> >>>>> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >>>>> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >>>>> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >>>>> >>>>> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I >>>>> say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has >>>>> raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and >>>>> resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >>>>> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >>>>> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>>>> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency >>>>> is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) >>>>> referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter >>>>> review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies >>>>> outside of the SCI's scope. >>>>> >>>>> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >>>>> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way >>>>> forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this >>>>> issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its >>>>> first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on >>>>> the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by >>>>> the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best >>>>> path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC >>>>> membership. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Angie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: >>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>> Cc: Angie Graves , "" >>>>> , Julie Hedlund >>>>> , Mary Wong , Ron Andruff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>> >>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >>>>> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund >>>>> , "" >>>>> , 'Ron Andruff' >>>>> , 'Angie Graves' >>>>> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin, >>>>> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >>>>> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >>>>> >>>>> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will >>>>> be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >>>>> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >>>>> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >>>>> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, >>>>> we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than >>>>> achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and >>>>> brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my >>>>> knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the >>>>> discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>> ] >>>>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>> >>>>> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >>>>> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >>>>> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >>>>> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >>>> > >>>>> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Martin Sutton >>>>> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >>>>> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >>>>> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry >>>>> >>>>> ********************************* >>>>> >>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>> >>>>> ********************************* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >>>>> Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON >>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 >>>>> Websitewww.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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Mar 16 23:35:51 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:35:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks much to you too, Angie! I apologize ? I had misunderstood Martin?s note in that by mentioning the BC, the BC Charter Review Team and ?we" I had assumed the issue Martin highlighted was one that had already been brought to the attention of the broader BC or at least BC leadership. Seen in the light that you?ve just shone on it, I do think it?s worth noting that we ? and in this I mean myself more than anyone ? should be careful in the future about who raises a question to the SCI and on whose behalf. Although it?s not likely that the SCI will see a flood of requests and queries, we should probably make a distinction between official queries by a GNSO group and informal questions by individuals who happen to encounter an issue in one particular group. In the meantime, I will also try to see if the draft note can/should be further edited to make it clear that the SCI is not responding formally to an official query. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 19:22 To: Greg Shatan Cc: Mary Wong , "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > Dear All, > > Thanks to Anne and Mary for composing the response. > > I agree with Greg's comments, and have a few more: > > It would be helpful to clarify Martin's status as representative, because the > language in the SCI letter may be misinterpreted-- Martin wrote to the SCI as > a representative of the BC's Charter Review Team, not as representative of the > entire BC. Referencing his request as "raised by the BC" gives a different > context to the suggestions offered to him in SCI's response. > > I mention this because, as a fellow member of the BC, the issue Martin raised > with the SCI has not yet been shared with the BC membership at large, any > maybe not with any BC member outside of the BC's Charter Review Team. A > sentence suggesting that the BC's Charter Review Team share this issue with > the BC membership, so that the BC can agree to and support a course of action, > may be a simple fix. > > > One other note: I suggest removing the sentence about the timeliness of > raising the issue with the broader GNSO community. > Firstly, this sentence may be misinterpreted by Martin as direction to him to > raise the issue with the GNSO community, as he raised the issue with us. > Also, from a BC perspective, the item on Martin's plate most deserving of > priority and time is completing the charter revision work being done now by > the BC's Charter Review Team. In that context, this issue is a drain on his > time and attention. I believe that the BC will be most receptive to the issue > if it is raised alongside delivery of the revised charter. > > > Nit: > representatives on the group > would sound better as > representatives of the group > > > Thank you, > > Angie > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >> I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. >> >> I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate >> our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a >> "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, >> since it is chartered by ICANN. >> >> However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and >> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section >> 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting >> member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section >> of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the >> increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO >> Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this >> seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which >> the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I >> think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview >> because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge >> later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in >> the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of >> those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take >> up. >> >> Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better >> forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the >> SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide >> that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against >> vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule >> would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO >> Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C >> leaderships would just delay consideration. >> >> It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or >> email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the >> Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. >> We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred >> to us by the Council. >> >> I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult >> with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that >> cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and >> results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to >> "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this >> should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a >> charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly >> realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. >> >> Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, >> and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. >> If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the >> BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >>> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched >>> out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI >>> chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense >>> to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email >>> rather than as a separate letter would work too. >>> >>> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that >>> each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures >>> for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, >>> and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure >>> with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each >>> SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took >>> place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency >>> had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early >>> 2009. >>> >>> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >>> >>> >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >>> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed >>> the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the >>> possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we >>> agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or >>> procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the >>> remit of the SCI. >>> >>> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >>> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >>> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >>> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, >>> for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is >>> based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, >>> adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter >>> for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight >>> exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the >>> discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see >>> Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >>> >>> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by >>> the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to >>> happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s >>> consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a >>> revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its >>> internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external >>> input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its >>> decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could >>> reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be >>> developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs >>> are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each >>> SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It >>> may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within >>> the broader GNSO community. >>> >>> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures >>> prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure >>> representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, >>> while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their >>> participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see >>> Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In >>> line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if >>> a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve >>> the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO >>> norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating >>> Procedures. >>> >>> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may >>> also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that >>> is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the >>> BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report >>> of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in >>> mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that >>> can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as >>> well. >>> >>> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should >>> you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of >>> the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not >>> hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s >>> efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> Anne Aikman-Scalese >>> 2015 Chair, SCI >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Amr Elsadr >>> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >>> To: Mary Wong >>> Cc: "" , >>> Ron Andruff >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion >>>> was headed in an agreeable direction. >>>> >>>> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t >>>> become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by >>>> others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, >>>> I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope >>>> of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be >>>> harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been >>>> picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the >>>> GNSO?s SGs/Cs. >>>> >>>> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >>>> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >>>> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is >>>> indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter >>>> revision. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Angie and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >>>>> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >>>>> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as >>>>> more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community >>>>> consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an >>>>> issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the >>>>> considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to >>>>> discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the >>>>> extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then >>>>> believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or >>>>> another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a >>>>> point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each >>>>> SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >>>>> >>>>> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which >>>>> we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >>>>> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >>>>> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >>>>> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >>>>> is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted >>>>> herein. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and 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: Angie Graves >>>>> Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >>>>> To: Anne , Mary Wong , >>>>> "" >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >>>>>> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >>>>>> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when >>>>>> I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin >>>>>> has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and >>>>>> resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >>>>>> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >>>>>> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>>>>> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency >>>>>> is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group >>>>>> (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's >>>>>> charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's >>>>>> request lies outside of the SCI's scope. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >>>>>> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal >>>>>> way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise >>>>>> this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion >>>>>> of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC >>>>>> consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly >>>>>> considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, >>>>>> and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed >>>>>> upon by the BC membership. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Angie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: >>>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>>> Cc: Angie Graves , >>>>>> "" , >>>>>> Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , >>>>>> Ron Andruff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>>> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >>>>>> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund >>>>>> , "" >>>>>> , 'Ron Andruff' >>>>>> , 'Angie Graves' >>>>>> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin, >>>>>> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >>>>>> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >>>>>> >>>>>> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will >>>>>> be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >>>>>> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >>>>>> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >>>>>> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is >>>>>> preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more >>>>>> detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want >>>>>> to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue >>>>>> since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has >>>>>> commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >>>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>>> ] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >>>>>> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >>>>>> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >>>>>> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >>>>> > >>>>>> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin Sutton >>>>>> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >>>>>> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >>>>>> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry >>>>>> >>>>>> ********************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> >>>>>> ********************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >>>>>> Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >>>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >>>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Mon Mar 16 23:47:00 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:47:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D06008.D270D840] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC's question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr's question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C - in the current GNSO structure - is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board - this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO's rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN's bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group's charter is therefore a matter for that group's internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group's charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC's consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community-based bottom-up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community's behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community's efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven't commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn't become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don't see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn't a policy issue, I honestly don't see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don't think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO's SGs/Cs. Isn't the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn't find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments - I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C's representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, ">" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, ">" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From angie at webgroup.com Tue Mar 17 00:13:04 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:13:04 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Mary, > > Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO > Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We > should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this > question. > > 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong > *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM > *Cc:* ; Ron Andruff > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect > your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly > rather than with individual SG/Cs. > > > > On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question > of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can > include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic > to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note > to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for > further/future review at the appropriate time. > > > > Thanks and 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 > *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying > premises. > > > > I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot > generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council > or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is > neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. > > > > However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section > 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting > member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section > of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given > the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The > GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, > this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and > which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate > deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the > Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As > you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number > of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this > relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for > the Council to take up. > > > > Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better > forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the > SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and > decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard > against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a > rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend > GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the > SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. > > > > It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter > (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the > Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the > issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is > referred to us by the Council. > > > > I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC > consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of > problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are > consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are > friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I > don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are > undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an > increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. > > > > Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, > and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those > options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be > fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. > > > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie > agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as > sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne > as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would > make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form > of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. > > > > On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that > each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include > procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous > structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current > structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency > structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN > Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each > existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this > took place in early 2009. > > > > Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. > > > > > > Dear Martin, > > > > Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on > Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has > discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised > concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, > and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the > GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue > lies outside the remit of the SCI. > > > > The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the > effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working > Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder > Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, > for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is > based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, > scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is > therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, > with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the > current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of > each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). > > > > Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by > the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to > happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the > BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a > revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its > internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external > input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its > decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could > reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be > developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs > are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each > SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It > may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within > the broader GNSO community. > > > > In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating > Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles > that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. > Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, > their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear > (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating > Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based > bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to > agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in > the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be > added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. > > > > Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may > also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party > that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through > the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial > report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in > mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments > that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the > GNSO as well. > > > > I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. > Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, > please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support > the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and > processes. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > > 2015 Chair, SCI > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Amr Elsadr > *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Hi, > > > > I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the > discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. > > > > I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue > doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted > by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy > issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the > scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would > be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have > been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled > by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. > > > > Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as > well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. > May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is > indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter > revision. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > > > Dear Angie and everyone, > > > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying > very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) > defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more > general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based > bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best > determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations > mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the > question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a > substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more > uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C > can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted > by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives > on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. > > > > Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which > we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is > necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, > nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please > reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none > is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as > noted herein. > > > > Thanks and 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: *Angie Graves > *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 > *To: *Anne , Mary Wong , "< > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < > randruff at rnapartners.com> > *Subject: *Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > > Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, > > > > I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC > and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary > Wong's pending response, I defer to her. > > > > I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I > say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has > raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution > to the potential for abuse of voting rights. > > > > Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council > processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been > identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO > Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is > one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) > referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter > review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies > outside of the SCI's scope. > > > > I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC > Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way > forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this > issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its > first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on > the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by > the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path > forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC > membership. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves , "" > , Julie Hedlund , > Mary Wong , Ron Andruff > > > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. > > 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! > > > > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC > Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , > 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > ------------------------------ > > > > > Martin, > Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list > regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. > > Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will > be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a > consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At > present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement > with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, > we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than > achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and > brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my > knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the > discussion of this matter on the SCI list. > 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM > * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, > > As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to > meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations > with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. > > 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! > > > > > > > > From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC > To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Thank you Anne, much appreciated. > > Martin Sutton > Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence > Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 > Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ********************************* > > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > > ********************************* > > > ------------------------------ > > * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] > * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT > * To: *Martin C SUTTON > * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. > 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* * | **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 > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Mar 17 14:36:23 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:23 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com><3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: <<... Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in ways other than their ISPCP membership. Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status or that of their organisation. ...>> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked about on a case by case. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Angie Graves Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong Cc: "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong Cc: "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne , Mary Wong , "" Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Cc: Angie Graves , "" , Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , Ron Andruff Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund , "" , 'Ron Andruff' , 'Angie Graves' Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From RA at ONRconsulting.com Tue Mar 17 15:12:34 2015 From: RA at ONRconsulting.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:12:34 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com><3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> Message-ID: <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Dear all, As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the SCI, and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I thought it might help if I provided some further context. Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters to remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my knowledge) have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach of trying to develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as possible. We are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines between constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a certain level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the constituency level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the horse? My two cents? Hope this sheds more light on the matter. Kind regards, RA PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; REPLACE WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com (+1) 917 770-2693 From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 To: Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: <<... Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in ways other than their ISPCP membership. Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status or that of their organisation. ...>> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked about on a case by case. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Angie Graves Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: " >" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: " >" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, " >" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, " >" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, " >" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching _____ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [ mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" < AAikman at LRRLaw.com> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching _____ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* _____ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com ] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ _____ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ _____ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Tue Mar 17 19:32:34 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:32:34 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Message-ID: Ron, That is very helpful background. I agree that the BC needs to progress this more before bringing it to the Council (if at all). If this is an issue that the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of options to do so. I think that the email letter was intended to capture those options. One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that start the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues. Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective leadership groups about this. Another option is to bring it to the Council. Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to the SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating Procedures is seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against vote-switching. At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they are currently thinking about it. Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite instructive. Anything more than that is probably premature. Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear all, > > > > As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the > SCI, and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I > thought it might help if I provided some further context. > > > > Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters to > remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my > knowledge) have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach > of trying to develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as > possible. We are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines > between constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each > constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company > that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. > > > > We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC > Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by > the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. > > > > In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the > sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft > Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are > obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many > levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. > > > > At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a > certain level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the > constituency level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the > horse? > > > > My two cents? Hope this sheds more light on the matter. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > *PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS*: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; *REPLACE > WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com * > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *ONR Consulting, Inc.* > > *www.ICANNSherpa.com * > > *(+1) 917 770-2693 <%28%2B1%29%20917%20770-2693>* > > > > *From:* WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 > *To:* Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Cc:* Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Ron Andruff > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . > Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs > to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. > > > > FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: > > > > <<... > > Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of > another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation > in ways other than their ISPCP membership. > > Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are > required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally > oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions > in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and > Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. > > In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide > information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to > their status or that of their organisation. > > ...>> > > > > This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked > about on a case by case. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Angie Graves > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM > > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > *Cc:* Mary Wong ; > mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Ron Andruff > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Dear all, > > > > If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be > in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the > loophole that Martin discovered. > > > > Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: > > "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." > > > > > > > > Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI > should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of > identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member > of more than one Group." > > > > Regards, > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: > > Mary, > > Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO > Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We > should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this > question. > > 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong > *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM > *Cc:* ; Ron Andruff > > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect > your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly > rather than with individual SG/Cs. > > > > On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question > of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can > include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic > to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note > to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for > further/future review at the appropriate time. > > > > Thanks and 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 > *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. > > > > I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot > generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council > or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is > neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. > > > > However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section > 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting > member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section > of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given > the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The > GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, > this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and > which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate > deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the > Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As > you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number > of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this > relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for > the Council to take up. > > > > Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better > forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the > SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and > decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard > against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a > rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend > GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the > SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. > > > > It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter > (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the > Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the > issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is > referred to us by the Council. > > > > I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC > consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of > problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are > consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are > friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I > don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are > undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an > increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. > > > > Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, > and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those > options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be > fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. > > > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie > agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as > sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne > as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would > make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form > of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. > > > > On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that > each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include > procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous > structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current > structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency > structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN > Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each > existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this > took place in early 2009. > > > > Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. > > > > > > Dear Martin, > > > > Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on > Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has > discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised > concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, > and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the > GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue > lies outside the remit of the SCI. > > > > The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the > effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working > Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder > Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, > for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is > based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, > scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is > therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, > with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the > current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of > each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). > > > > Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by > the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to > happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the > BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a > revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its > internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external > input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its > decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could > reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be > developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs > are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each > SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It > may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within > the broader GNSO community. > > > > In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating > Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles > that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. > Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, > their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear > (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating > Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based > bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to > agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in > the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be > added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. > > > > Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may > also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party > that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through > the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial > report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in > mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments > that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the > GNSO as well. > > > > I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. > Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, > please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support > the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and > processes. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > > 2015 Chair, SCI > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Amr Elsadr > *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Hi, > > > > I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the > discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. > > > > I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue > doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted > by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy > issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the > scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would > be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have > been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled > by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. > > > > Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as > well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. > May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is > indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter > revision. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > > > Dear Angie and everyone, > > > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying > very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) > defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more > general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based > bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best > determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations > mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the > question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a > substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more > uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C > can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted > by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives > on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. > > > > Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which > we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is > necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, > nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please > reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none > is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as > noted herein. > > > > Thanks and 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: *Angie Graves > *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 > *To: *Anne , Mary Wong , "< > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < > randruff at rnapartners.com> > *Subject: *Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > > Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, > > > > I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC > and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary > Wong's pending response, I defer to her. > > > > I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I > say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has > raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution > to the potential for abuse of voting rights. > > > > Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council > processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been > identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO > Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is > one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) > referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter > review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies > outside of the SCI's scope. > > > > I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC > Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way > forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this > issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its > first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on > the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the > constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path > forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC > membership. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves , "" > , Julie Hedlund , > Mary Wong , Ron Andruff > > > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. > > 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! > > > > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC > Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , > 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > ------------------------------ > > > > > Martin, > Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list > regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. > > Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will > be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a > consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At > present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement > with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, > we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than > achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and > brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my > knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the > discussion of this matter on the SCI list. > 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, > > As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to > meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations > with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. > > 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! > > > > > > > > From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC > To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Thank you Anne, much appreciated. > > Martin Sutton > Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence > Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 > Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ********************************* > > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > > ********************************* > > > ------------------------------ > > * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] > *Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT > *To: *Martin C SUTTON > *Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. > 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* * | **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 > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Tue Mar 17 21:35:13 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:35:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Message-ID: Thanks to Ron and everyone for their insights. It sounds like there is general agreement that this is at the moment an internal BC issue, with the possibility of its going to the GNSO Council at some appropriate time for discussion and possible coordination of a consistent position or rule. As noted in previous discussions, At this point, staff respectfully suggests that the best approach may be for Ron and Angie, as the BC representatives to the SCI, to write or speak directly to Martin. Besides the preliminary nature of the question and the possible options as suggested, we thought that it made sense that the response not be an official one from the SCI through the Chair, since the query was a somewhat informal one from a group from within the BC and not an official BC request. 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 Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32 To: Ron Andruff Cc: WUKnoben , Angie Graves , "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Mary Wong , "" , Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > Ron, > > That is very helpful background. I agree that the BC needs to progress this > more before bringing it to the Council (if at all). If this is an issue that > the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of options to do so. > I think that the email letter was intended to capture those options. > > One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that start > the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues. > Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective > leadership groups about this. > Another option is to bring it to the Council. > > Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to the > SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating Procedures is > seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against vote-switching. > > At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C > leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they are > currently thinking about it. Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite instructive. > Anything more than that is probably premature. > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the SCI, >> and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I thought it >> might help if I provided some further context. >> >> Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters to >> remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my knowledge) >> have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach of trying to >> develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as possible. We >> are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines between >> constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each >> constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company that >> may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. >> >> We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC >> Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by >> the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. >> >> In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the >> sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft >> Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are >> obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many levels >> BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. >> >> At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a certain >> level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the constituency >> level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the horse? >> >> My two cents? Hope this sheds more light on the matter. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> >> PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com >> ; REPLACE WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> ONR Consulting, Inc. >> www.ICANNSherpa.com >> (+1) 917 770-2693 >> >> >> From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 >> To: Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Ron Andruff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . >> Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs >> to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. >> >> >> >> FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: >> >> >> >> <<... >> Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of another >> GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in ways >> other than their ISPCP membership. >> Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required >> to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented >> meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN >> affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity >> Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. >> In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information >> to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status or >> that of their organisation. >> >> ...>> >> >> >> >> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked >> about on a case by case. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> From:Angie Graves >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM >> >> To:Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> >> Cc: Mary Wong ; >> mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Ron Andruff >> >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in >> the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole >> that Martin discovered. >> >> >> >> Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: >> >> "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." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI >> should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of >> identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of >> more than one Group." >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> wrote: >>> >>> Mary, >>> Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO >>> Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We >>> should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this >>> question. >>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM >>> Cc: ; Ron Andruff >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect >>> your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly >>> rather than with individual SG/Cs. >>> >>> >>> >>> On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of >>> the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can >>> include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic >>> to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to >>> the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for >>> further/future review at the appropriate time. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and 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 >>> Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 >>> To: Mary Wong >>> Cc: "" , >>> Ron Andruff >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot >>>> generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council >>>> or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is >>>> neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and >>>> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section >>>> 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting >>>> member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section >>>> of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given >>>> the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The >>>> GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, >>>> this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and >>>> which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate >>>> deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the >>>> Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As >>>> you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number >>>> of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this >>>> relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for >>>> the Council to take up. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better >>>> forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the >>>> SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and >>>> decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard >>>> against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a >>>> rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend >>>> GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the >>>> SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter >>>> (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the >>>> Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. >>>> We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred >>>> to us by the Council. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC >>>> consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of >>>> problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are >>>> consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are >>>> friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I >>>> don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are >>>> undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an >>>> increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its >>>> charter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, >>>> and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. >>>> If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the >>>> BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >>>> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as >>>> sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne >>>> as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would >>>> make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form >>>> of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that >>>> each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include >>>> procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous >>>> structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current >>>> structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency >>>> structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN >>>> Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each >>>> existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this >>>> took place in early 2009. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Martin, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >>>> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has >>>> discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised >>>> concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, >>>> and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the >>>> GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue >>>> lies outside the remit of the SCI. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >>>> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >>>> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >>>> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, >>>> for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is >>>> based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, >>>> scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is >>>> therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, >>>> with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the >>>> current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of >>>> each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by >>>> the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to >>>> happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the >>>> BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a >>>> revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its >>>> internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external >>>> input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its >>>> decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could >>>> reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be >>>> developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs >>>> are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each >>>> SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It >>>> may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within >>>> the broader GNSO community. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating >>>> Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles >>>> that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. >>>> Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, >>>> their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear >>>> (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating >>>> Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based >>>> bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to >>>> agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in >>>> the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be >>>> added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may >>>> also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party >>>> that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through >>>> the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial >>>> report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in >>>> mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments >>>> that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the >>>> GNSO as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should >>>> you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of >>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not >>>> hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s >>>> efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne Aikman-Scalese >>>> >>>> 2015 Chair, SCI >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Amr Elsadr >>>> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >>>> To: Mary Wong >>>> Cc: "" , >>>> Ron Andruff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>>> switching >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the >>>>> discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue >>>>> doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted >>>>> by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy >>>>> issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the >>>>> scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would >>>>> be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have >>>>> been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled >>>>> by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >>>>> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >>>>> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that >>>>> is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG >>>>> charter revision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Angie and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >>>>> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >>>>> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as >>>>> more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community >>>>> consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an >>>>> issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the >>>>> considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to >>>>> discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the >>>>> extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then >>>>> believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or >>>>> another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a >>>>> point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each >>>>> SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which >>>>> we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >>>>> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >>>>> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >>>>> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >>>>> is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted >>>>> herein. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and 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: Angie Graves >>>>> Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >>>>> To: Anne , Mary Wong , >>>>> "" >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >>>>>> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >>>>>> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when >>>>>> I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin >>>>>> has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and >>>>>> resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >>>>>> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >>>>>> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>>>>> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency >>>>>> is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group >>>>>> (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's >>>>>> charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's >>>>>> request lies outside of the SCI's scope. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >>>>>> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal >>>>>> way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise >>>>>> this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion >>>>>> of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC >>>>>> consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly >>>>>> considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, >>>>>> and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed >>>>>> upon by the BC membership. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Angie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: >>>>>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>>> Cc: Angie Graves , >>>>>> "" , >>>>>> Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , >>>>>> Ron Andruff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >>>>>> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund >>>>>> , "" >>>>>> , 'Ron Andruff' >>>>>> , 'Angie Graves' >>>>>> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin, >>>>>> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >>>>>> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >>>>>> >>>>>> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will >>>>>> be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >>>>>> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >>>>>> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >>>>>> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is >>>>>> preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more >>>>>> detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want >>>>>> to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue >>>>>> since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has >>>>>> commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >>>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>>>>> ] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >>>>>> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >>>>>> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.hsbc.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >>>>>> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >>>>> > >>>>>> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin Sutton >>>>>> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >>>>>> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >>>>>> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry >>>>>> >>>>>> ********************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> >>>>>> ********************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >>>>>> Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >>>>>> To: Martin C SUTTON >>>>>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >>>>>> 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 >>>>>> Websitewww.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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> HSBC Holdings plc >>>>>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>>>>> Registered in England number 617987 >>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From RA at ONRconsulting.com Wed Mar 18 15:15:02 2015 From: RA at ONRconsulting.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:15:02 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Message-ID: <010801d0618e$4f634320$ee29c960$@ONRconsulting.com> Thanks Mary and all for the good input on this issue. I am good with the recommended way forward. I would look to our BC Primary rep, Angie, to take this to Martin and the sub-committee, if no one has any objections. Kind regards, RA PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; REPLACE WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com (+1) 917 770-2693 From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 17:35 To: Ron Andruff Cc: Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks to Ron and everyone for their insights. It sounds like there is general agreement that this is at the moment an internal BC issue, with the possibility of its going to the GNSO Council at some appropriate time for discussion and possible coordination of a consistent position or rule. As noted in previous discussions, At this point, staff respectfully suggests that the best approach may be for Ron and Angie, as the BC representatives to the SCI, to write or speak directly to Martin. Besides the preliminary nature of the question and the possible options as suggested, we thought that it made sense that the response not be an official one from the SCI through the Chair, since the query was a somewhat informal one from a group from within the BC and not an official BC request. 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 > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32 To: Ron Andruff > Cc: WUKnoben >, Angie Graves >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >, Mary Wong >, " >" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Ron, That is very helpful background. I agree that the BC needs to progress this more before bringing it to the Council (if at all). If this is an issue that the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of options to do so. I think that the email letter was intended to capture those options. One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that start the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues. Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective leadership groups about this. Another option is to bring it to the Council. Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to the SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating Procedures is seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against vote-switching. At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they are currently thinking about it. Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite instructive. Anything more than that is probably premature. Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff > wrote: Dear all, As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the SCI, and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I thought it might help if I provided some further context. Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters to remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my knowledge) have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach of trying to develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as possible. We are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines between constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a certain level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the constituency level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the horse My two cents Hope this sheds more light on the matter. Kind regards, RA PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; REPLACE WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com (+1) 917 770-2693 From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de ] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 To: Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: <<... Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in ways other than their ISPCP membership. Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status or that of their organisation. ...>> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked about on a case by case. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Angie Graves Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM To:Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: " >" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: " >" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, " >" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, " >" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, " >" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching _____ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [ mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" < AAikman at LRRLaw.com> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching _____ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* _____ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com ] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ _____ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ _____ ----------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From angie at webgroup.com Wed Mar 18 15:19:57 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:19:57 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Mary. I agree. I am glad to reach out to Martin on this. Angie On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Thanks to Ron and everyone for their insights. It sounds like there is > general agreement that this is at the moment an internal BC issue, with the > possibility of its going to the GNSO Council at some appropriate time for > discussion and possible coordination of a consistent position or rule. As > noted in previous discussions, > > At this point, staff respectfully suggests that the best approach may be > for Ron and Angie, as the BC representatives to the SCI, to write or speak > directly to Martin. Besides the preliminary nature of the question and the > possible options as suggested, we thought that it made sense that the > response not be an official one from the SCI through the Chair, since the > query was a somewhat informal one from a group from within the BC and not > an official BC request. > > 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 > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: WUKnoben , Angie Graves < > angie at webgroup.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Mary > Wong , "" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > Ron, > > That is very helpful background. I agree that the BC needs to progress > this more before bringing it to the Council (if at all). If this is an > issue that the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of > options to do so. I think that the email letter was intended to capture > those options. > > One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that > start the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues. > Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective > leadership groups about this. > Another option is to bring it to the Council. > > Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to the > SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating Procedures > is seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against > vote-switching. > > At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C > leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they > are currently thinking about it. Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite > instructive. Anything more than that is probably premature. > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the >> SCI, and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I >> thought it might help if I provided some further context. >> >> >> >> Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters >> to remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my >> knowledge) have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach >> of trying to develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as >> possible. We are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines >> between constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each >> constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company >> that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. >> >> >> >> We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the BC >> Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light by >> the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. >> >> >> >> In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the >> sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft >> Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are >> obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many >> levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. >> >> >> >> At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a >> certain level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the >> constituency level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the >> horse? >> >> >> >> My two cents? Hope this sheds more light on the matter. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> RA >> >> >> >> >> >> *PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS*: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; *REPLACE >> WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com * >> >> >> >> *Ron Andruff* >> >> *ONR Consulting, Inc.* >> >> *www.ICANNSherpa.com * >> >> *(+1) 917 770-2693 <%28%2B1%29%20917%20770-2693>* >> >> >> >> *From:* WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 >> *To:* Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> *Cc:* Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Ron Andruff >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> >> >> I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . >> Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs >> to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. >> >> >> >> FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: >> >> >> >> <<... >> >> Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of >> another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation >> in ways other than their ISPCP membership. >> >> Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are >> required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally >> oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions >> in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and >> Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. >> >> In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide >> information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to >> their status or that of their organisation. >> >> ...>> >> >> >> >> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked >> about on a case by case. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> *From:*Angie Graves >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM >> >> *To:*Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> >> *Cc:* Mary Wong ; >> mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> ; Ron Andruff >> >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be >> in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the >> loophole that Martin discovered. >> >> >> >> Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: >> >> "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." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the >> SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of >> identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member >> of more than one Group." >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> wrote: >> >> Mary, >> >> Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO >> Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We >> should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this >> question. >> >> 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong >> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM >> *Cc:* ; Ron Andruff >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> >> >> Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect >> your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly >> rather than with individual SG/Cs. >> >> >> >> On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question >> of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can >> include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic >> to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note >> to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for >> further/future review at the appropriate time. >> >> >> >> Thanks and 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 >> *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 >> *To: *Mary Wong >> *Cc: *"" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff >> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> >> >> I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. >> >> >> >> I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot >> generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council >> or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is >> neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. >> >> >> >> However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and >> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section >> 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting >> member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section >> of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given >> the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The >> GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, >> this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and >> which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate >> deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the >> Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As >> you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number >> of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this >> relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for >> the Council to take up. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a >> better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of >> the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and >> decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard >> against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a >> rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend >> GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the >> SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. >> >> >> >> It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter >> (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the >> Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the >> issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is >> referred to us by the Council. >> >> >> >> I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC >> consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of >> problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are >> consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are >> friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I >> don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are >> undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an >> increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. >> >> >> >> Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the >> options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those >> options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be >> fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> >> >> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as >> sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne >> as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would >> make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form >> of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. >> >> >> >> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that >> each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include >> procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous >> structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current >> structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency >> structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN >> Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each >> existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this >> took place in early 2009. >> >> >> >> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Martin, >> >> >> >> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has >> discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised >> concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, >> and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the >> GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue >> lies outside the remit of the SCI. >> >> >> >> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, >> for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is >> based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, >> scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is >> therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, >> with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the >> current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of >> each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >> >> >> >> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised >> by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it >> to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the >> BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a >> revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its >> internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external >> input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its >> decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could >> reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be >> developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs >> are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each >> SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It >> may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within >> the broader GNSO community. >> >> >> >> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating >> Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles >> that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. >> Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, >> their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear >> (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating >> Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based >> bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to >> agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in >> the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be >> added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. >> >> >> >> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may >> also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party >> that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through >> the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial >> report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in >> mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments >> that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the >> GNSO as well. >> >> >> >> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. >> Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the >> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, >> please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support >> the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and >> processes. >> >> >> >> With best regards, >> >> >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese >> >> 2015 Chair, SCI >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Amr Elsadr >> *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >> *To: *Mary Wong >> *Cc: *"" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff >> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the >> discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. >> >> >> >> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue >> doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted >> by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy >> issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the >> scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would >> be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have >> been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled >> by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. >> >> >> >> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is >> indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter >> revision. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Amr >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Angie and everyone, >> >> >> >> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying >> very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more >> general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based >> bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best >> determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations >> mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the >> question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a >> substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more >> uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C >> can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted >> by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives >> on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >> >> >> >> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, >> which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >> is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as >> noted herein. >> >> >> >> Thanks and 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: *Angie Graves >> *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >> *To: *Anne , Mary Wong , "< >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" >> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < >> randruff at rnapartners.com> >> *Subject: *Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> >> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >> >> >> >> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC >> and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >> >> >> >> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when >> I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has >> raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution >> to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is >> one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) >> referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter >> review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies >> outside of the SCI's scope. >> >> >> >> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way >> forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this >> issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its >> first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on >> the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the >> constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path >> forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC >> membership. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> Cc: Angie Graves , "" >> , Julie Hedlund , >> Mary Wong , Ron Andruff >> >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < >> julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , >> 'Angie Graves' >> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> Martin, >> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >> >> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will >> be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a >> consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, >> we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than >> achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and >> brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my >> knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the >> discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >> 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >> ] >> * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >> * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> Dear Anne, >> >> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >> >> Martin Sutton >> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >> Sent from my BlackBerry >> >> ********************************* >> >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> >> ********************************* >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >> * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >> * To: *Martin C SUTTON >> * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >> >> >> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >> 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* * | **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 >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> 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. >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 15:50:58 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:50:58 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <993FFB83334F432D8F0A38521E77D196@WUKPC> <03d701d060c4$ccfbe0a0$66f3a1e0$@ONRconsulting.com> Message-ID: Interestingly, the related issue of dealing with potential voting rights across multiple constituencies came up in the IPC yesterday -- completely coincidentally. When the time comes, I'm sure IPC leadership would be happy to explore the issue with BC leadership in a more informal way. Greg On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Angie Graves wrote: > Thank you, Mary. I agree. I am glad to reach out to Martin on this. > > Angie > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> Thanks to Ron and everyone for their insights. It sounds like there is >> general agreement that this is at the moment an internal BC issue, with the >> possibility of its going to the GNSO Council at some appropriate time for >> discussion and possible coordination of a consistent position or rule. As >> noted in previous discussions, >> >> At this point, staff respectfully suggests that the best approach may be >> for Ron and Angie, as the BC representatives to the SCI, to write or speak >> directly to Martin. Besides the preliminary nature of the question and the >> possible options as suggested, we thought that it made sense that the >> response not be an official one from the SCI through the Chair, since the >> query was a somewhat informal one from a group from within the BC and not >> an official BC request. >> >> 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 >> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 15:32 >> To: Ron Andruff >> Cc: WUKnoben , Angie Graves < >> angie at webgroup.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Mary >> Wong , "" < >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >> switching >> >> Ron, >> >> That is very helpful background. I agree that the BC needs to progress >> this more before bringing it to the Council (if at all). If this is an >> issue that the BC wants to bring out of the BC, there are a variety of >> options to do so. I think that the email letter was intended to capture >> those options. >> >> One option is certainly to complete a draft revised Charter and let that >> start the conversation about regulating vote-switching and related issues. >> Another option is to open a cross SG/C dialogue among the respective >> leadership groups about this. >> Another option is to bring it to the Council. >> >> Each of these options probably leads to the others, and potentially to >> the SCI, if revising the appropriate sections of the GNSO Operating >> Procedures is seen as a potential appropriate home for safeguards against >> vote-switching. >> >> At this point, the simplest thing may be for Martin to reach out to SG/C >> leaderships to see if and how they have dealt with this issue, and if they >> are currently thinking about it. Wolf-Ulrich's response was quite >> instructive. Anything more than that is probably premature. >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ron Andruff >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> As I was (until recently) on the BC Charter team and formerly with the >>> SCI, and this topic is getting a lot of consideration by all of you, I >>> thought it might help if I provided some further context. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding the BC Charter, all Constituencies must update their Charters >>> to remain current with an evolving ICANN; however, only a few (to my >>> knowledge) have done so, at this point in time. The BC took the approach >>> of trying to develop a Charter that would include as many best practices as >>> possible. We are particularly keen in identifying how to draw clear lines >>> between constituencies and their respective interests, with members in each >>> constituency clearly coming from the specific business unit of a company >>> that may have memberships in several constituencies, as one example. >>> >>> >>> >>> We had not gotten to this stage when I stepped down as co-Chair of the >>> BC Charter drafting team, but I believe that Martin was given a green light >>> by the rest of that sub-committee to ask the question of the SCI. >>> >>> >>> >>> In my view, this is a matter for the BC to sort out; first at the >>> sub-committee level, then at the full membership level, and then the draft >>> Charter will be sent out for public comment (as all new Charters are >>> obliged). So there are many opportunities for much discussion at many >>> levels BEFORE it would ever become an SCI issue, as I see it. >>> >>> >>> >>> At the end of the day, while this does impact the GNSO Council at a >>> certain level, it must be considered and more or less resolved at the >>> constituency level. Taking this to Council is putting the cart before the >>> horse? >>> >>> >>> >>> My two cents? Hope this sheds more light on the matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS*: DELETE randruff at rnapartners.com; *REPLACE >>> WITH: RA at ONRconsulting.com * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Ron Andruff* >>> >>> *ONR Consulting, Inc.* >>> >>> *www.ICANNSherpa.com * >>> >>> *(+1) 917 770-2693 <%28%2B1%29%20917%20770-2693>* >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36 >>> *To:* Angie Graves; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> *Cc:* Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Ron Andruff >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>> switching >>> >>> >>> >>> I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up . >>> Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs >>> to bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form. >>> >>> >>> >>> FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures: >>> >>> >>> >>> <<... >>> >>> Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of >>> another GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation >>> in ways other than their ISPCP membership. >>> >>> Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are >>> required to demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally >>> oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions >>> in ICANN affairs, and that the entity will only represent ISP and >>> Connectivity Providers perspectives within the ISPCP. >>> >>> In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide >>> information to the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to >>> their status or that of their organisation. >>> >>> ...>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be >>> talked about on a case by case. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Angie Graves >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM >>> >>> *To:*Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> >>> *Cc:* Mary Wong ; >>> mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> ; Ron Andruff >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>> switching >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should >>> be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the >>> loophole that Martin discovered. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: >>> >>> "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." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the >>> SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of >>> identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member >>> of more than one Group." >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Angie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne < >>> AAikman at lrrlaw.com> wrote: >>> >>> Mary, >>> >>> Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO >>> Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We >>> should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this >>> question. >>> >>> 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: >>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong >>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM >>> *Cc:* ; Ron Andruff >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>> switching >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to >>> reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council >>> directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. >>> >>> >>> >>> On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question >>> of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can >>> include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic >>> to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note >>> to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for >>> further/future review at the appropriate time. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and 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 >>> *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 >>> *To: *Mary Wong >>> *Cc: *"" < >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff >>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>> switching >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot >>> generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council >>> or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is >>> neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. >>> >>> >>> >>> However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and >>> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section >>> 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting >>> member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section >>> of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given >>> the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The >>> GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, >>> this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and >>> which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate >>> deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the >>> Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As >>> you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number >>> of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this >>> relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for >>> the Council to take up. >>> >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a >>> better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of >>> the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and >>> decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard >>> against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a >>> rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend >>> GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the >>> SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter >>> (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the >>> Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the >>> issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is >>> referred to us by the Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC >>> consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of >>> problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are >>> consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are >>> friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I >>> don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are >>> undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an >>> increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the >>> options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those >>> options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be >>> fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie >>> agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as >>> sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne >>> as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would >>> make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form >>> of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is >>> that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include >>> procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous >>> structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current >>> structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency >>> structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN >>> Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each >>> existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this >>> took place in early 2009. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on >>> Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has >>> discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised >>> concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, >>> and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the >>> GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue >>> lies outside the remit of the SCI. >>> >>> >>> >>> The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the >>> effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working >>> Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder >>> Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, >>> for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is >>> based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, >>> scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is >>> therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, >>> with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the >>> current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of >>> each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). >>> >>> >>> >>> Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised >>> by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it >>> to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the >>> BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a >>> revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its >>> internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external >>> input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its >>> decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could >>> reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be >>> developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs >>> are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each >>> SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It >>> may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within >>> the broader GNSO community. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating >>> Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles >>> that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. >>> Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, >>> their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear >>> (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating >>> Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based >>> bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to >>> agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in >>> the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be >>> added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. >>> >>> >>> >>> Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC >>> may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party >>> that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through >>> the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial >>> report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in >>> mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments >>> that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the >>> GNSO as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. >>> Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the >>> functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, >>> please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support >>> the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and >>> processes. >>> >>> >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Anne Aikman-Scalese >>> >>> 2015 Chair, SCI >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Amr Elsadr >>> *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 >>> *To: *Mary Wong >>> *Cc: *"" < >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Ron Andruff >>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote >>> switching >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the >>> discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue >>> doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted >>> by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy >>> issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the >>> scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would >>> be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have >>> been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled >>> by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as >>> well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. >>> May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is >>> indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter >>> revision. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Angie and everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both >>> saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) >>> defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more >>> general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based >>> bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best >>> determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations >>> mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the >>> question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a >>> substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more >>> uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C >>> can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted >>> by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives >>> on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, >>> which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is >>> necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, >>> nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please >>> reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none >>> is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as >>> noted herein. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and 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: *Angie Graves >>> *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 >>> *To: *Anne , Mary Wong , "< >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" >>> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < >>> randruff at rnapartners.com> >>> *Subject: *Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the >>> BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary >>> Wong's pending response, I defer to her. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when >>> I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has >>> raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution >>> to the potential for abuse of voting rights. >>> >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council >>> processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been >>> identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >>> Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is >>> one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) >>> referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter >>> review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies >>> outside of the SCI's scope. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC >>> Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way >>> forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this >>> issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its >>> first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on >>> the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the >>> constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path >>> forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC >>> membership. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> >>> >>> Angie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: >>> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM >>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>> Cc: Angie Graves , "" >>> , Julie Hedlund < >>> julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Mary Wong , Ron Andruff < >>> randruff at rnapartners.com> >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne, >>> >>> Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>> To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC >>> Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < >>> julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' < >>> randruff at rnapartners.com>, 'Angie Graves' >>> Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 >>> Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin, >>> Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list >>> regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. >>> >>> Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and >>> will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing >>> a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At >>> present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement >>> with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, >>> we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than >>> achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and >>> brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my >>> knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the >>> discussion of this matter on the SCI list. >>> 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com >>> ] >>> * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM >>> * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> Dear Anne, >>> >>> As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to >>> meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations >>> with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC >>> To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" >>> Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 >>> Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Anne, much appreciated. >>> >>> Martin Sutton >>> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence >>> Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 >>> Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 >>> Sent from my BlackBerry >>> >>> ********************************* >>> >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> >>> ********************************* >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] >>> * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT >>> * To: *Martin C SUTTON >>> * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching >>> >>> >>> Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. >>> 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* * | **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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> ************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> HSBC Holdings plc >>> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >>> Registered in England number 617987 >>> ************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Mar 18 18:33:22 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:33:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B75C91D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Angie, for volunteering to address this informally with Martin. I will simply let him know your are going to follow up as the SCI rep from the BC. I do wonder, however, whether we should be providing a somewhat formal response to the effect that the SCI can only consider questions raised by Council or a group chartered by Council. This would provide a consistent record of responding correctly from a procedural standpoint. I also think we should note this issue in relation to our ?periodic review? responsibilities in relation to the GNSO Operating Procedures generally and make sure we take stock of the status of the issue at that time. I therefore propose to respond to Martin using a modified version of one of Mary?s previously drafted paragraphs (shown in black below) as follows: Martin, Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of potential ?vote switching? among constituencies. Although the BC Charter team presents an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the SCI at this time since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet formulated or presented to Council a plan for periodic review of the Operating Procedures which might involve review of issues related to 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures, both of which address the rule that "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has volunteered to discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be explored further within the BC. Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause. Since the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and suggestions for mitigation of this potential problem. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify its own process for charter amendment. We hope the above is helpful to the BC?s Charter team deliberations. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D06169.5AE853E0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong; ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D06169.5AE853E0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, ">" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, ">" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Mar 24 21:24:38 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:24:38 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B75C91D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B75C91D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76BD6D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Seeing no comments on my draft to Martin sent to the list March 18, I will forward. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0663E.4251D890] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:33 AM To: 'Angie Graves' Cc: Mary Wong; ; Ron Andruff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Angie, for volunteering to address this informally with Martin. I will simply let him know your are going to follow up as the SCI rep from the BC. I do wonder, however, whether we should be providing a somewhat formal response to the effect that the SCI can only consider questions raised by Council or a group chartered by Council. This would provide a consistent record of responding correctly from a procedural standpoint. I also think we should note this issue in relation to our ?periodic review? responsibilities in relation to the GNSO Operating Procedures generally and make sure we take stock of the status of the issue at that time. I therefore propose to respond to Martin using a modified version of one of Mary?s previously drafted paragraphs (shown in black below) as follows: Martin, Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of potential ?vote switching? among constituencies. Although the BC Charter team presents an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the SCI at this time since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet formulated or presented to Council a plan for periodic review of the Operating Procedures which might involve review of issues related to 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures, both of which address the rule that "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has volunteered to discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be explored further within the BC. Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause. Since the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and suggestions for mitigation of this potential problem. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify its own process for charter amendment. We hope the above is helpful to the BC?s Charter team deliberations. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0663E.4251D890] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong; >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0663E.4251D890] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, ">" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, ">" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From angie at webgroup.com Tue Mar 24 21:42:11 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:42:11 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76BD6D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B75C91D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76BD6D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Anne. You are welcome to copy me on the message to Martin, if you are able, and I will follow-up with him shortly thereafter. Otherwise, I will follow-up with him tomorrow regardless. Angie On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Seeing no comments on my draft to Martin sent to the list March 18, I > will forward. > > 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:33 AM > *To:* 'Angie Graves' > *Cc:* Mary Wong; ; Ron Andruff > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Thanks Angie, for volunteering to address this informally with Martin. I > will simply let him know your are going to follow up as the SCI rep from > the BC. I do wonder, however, whether we should be providing a somewhat > formal response to the effect that the SCI can only consider questions > raised by Council or a group chartered by Council. This would provide a > consistent record of responding correctly from a procedural standpoint. > > > > I also think we should note this issue in relation to our ?periodic > review? responsibilities in relation to the GNSO Operating Procedures > generally and make sure we take stock of the status of the issue at that > time. > > > > I therefore propose to respond to Martin using a modified version of one > of Mary?s previously drafted paragraphs (shown in black below) as follows: > > > > Martin, > > Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of > potential ?vote switching? among constituencies. Although the BC Charter > team presents an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the > SCI at this time since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO > Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet > formulated or presented to Council a plan for periodic review of the > Operating Procedures which might involve review of issues related to > 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures, both of which address the rule > that "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than > one Group." > > > > Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has > volunteered to discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be > explored further within the BC. > > > > Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by > the BC at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could > cause. Since the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of > its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal > deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and > suggestions for mitigation of this potential problem. For instance, BC > leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO > position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know > if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we > note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify its own process for > charter amendment. > > > > We hope the above is helpful to the BC?s Charter team deliberations. > > 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com > ] *On Behalf Of *Angie Graves > *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 5:13 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Cc:* Mary Wong; ; Ron Andruff > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Dear all, > > > > If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be > in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the > loophole that Martin discovered. > > > > Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: > > "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." > > > > > > > > Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI > should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of > identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member > of more than one Group." > > > > Regards, > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: > > Mary, > > Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO > Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We > should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this > question. > > 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 ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong > *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM > *Cc:* ; Ron Andruff > > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect > your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly > rather than with individual SG/Cs. > > > > On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question > of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can > include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic > to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note > to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for > further/future review at the appropriate time. > > > > Thanks and 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 > *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying > premises. > > > > I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot > generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council > or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is > neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. > > > > However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section > 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting > member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section > of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given > the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The > GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, > this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and > which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate > deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the > Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As > you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number > of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this > relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for > the Council to take up. > > > > Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better > forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the > SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and > decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard > against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a > rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend > GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the > SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. > > > > It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter > (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the > Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the > issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is > referred to us by the Council. > > > > I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC > consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of > problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are > consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are > friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I > don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are > undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an > increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. > > > > Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, > and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those > options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be > fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. > > > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie > agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as > sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne > as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would > make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form > of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. > > > > On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that > each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include > procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous > structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current > structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency > structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN > Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each > existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this > took place in early 2009. > > > > Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. > > > > > > Dear Martin, > > > > Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on > Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has > discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised > concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, > and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the > GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue > lies outside the remit of the SCI. > > > > The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the > effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working > Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder > Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, > for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is > based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, > scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is > therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, > with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the > current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of > each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). > > > > Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by > the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to > happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the > BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a > revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its > internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external > input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its > decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could > reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be > developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs > are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each > SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It > may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within > the broader GNSO community. > > > > In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating > Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles > that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. > Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, > their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear > (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating > Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based > bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to > agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in > the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be > added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. > > > > Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may > also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party > that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through > the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial > report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in > mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments > that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the > GNSO as well. > > > > I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. > Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the > functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, > please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support > the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and > processes. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > > 2015 Chair, SCI > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Amr Elsadr > *Date: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 > *To: *Mary Wong > *Cc: *"" , > Ron Andruff > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote > switching > > > > Hi, > > > > I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the > discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. > > > > I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue > doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted > by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy > issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the > scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would > be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have > been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled > by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. > > > > Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as > well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. > May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is > indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter > revision. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > > > Dear Angie and everyone, > > > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying > very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) > defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more > general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based > bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best > determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations > mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the > question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a > substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more > uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C > can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted > by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives > on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. > > > > Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which > we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is > necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, > nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please > reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none > is received by *23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March*, we will proceed as > noted herein. > > > > Thanks and 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: *Angie Graves > *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 > *To: *Anne , Mary Wong , "< > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund , Ron Andruff < > randruff at rnapartners.com> > *Subject: *Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > > Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, > > > > I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC > and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary > Wong's pending response, I defer to her. > > > > I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I > say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has > raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution > to the potential for abuse of voting rights. > > > > Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council > processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been > identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO > Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is > one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) > referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter > review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies > outside of the SCI's scope. > > > > I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC > Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way > forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this > issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its > first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on > the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by > the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path > forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC > membership. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves , "" > , Julie Hedlund , > Mary Wong , Ron Andruff > > > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. > > 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! > > > > > > > From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC > Cc: 'Mary Wong' , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, 'Ron Andruff' , > 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 > Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > ------------------------------ > > > > > Martin, > Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list > regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. > > Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will > be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a > consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At > present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement > with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, > we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than > achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and > brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my > knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the > discussion of this matter on the SCI list. > 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* * | **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com > ] > * Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM > * To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > * Subject:* Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > Dear Anne, > > As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to > meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations > with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. > > 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! > > > > > > > > From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC > To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 > Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Thank you Anne, much appreciated. > > Martin Sutton > Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence > Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 > Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 > Sent from my BlackBerry > > ********************************* > > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > > ********************************* > > > ------------------------------ > > * From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] > * Sent: *26/02/2015 20:31 GMT > * To: *Martin C SUTTON > * Subject: *RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching > > > Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. > 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* * | **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 > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > ************************************************************ > HSBC Holdings plc > Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom > Registered in England number 617987 > ************************************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > ------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Mar 25 18:19:22 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:19:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B73B41B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B759509@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B75C91D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76BD6D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76C108@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Will do Angie, sending now. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D066ED.8AEC5210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:42 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Angie Graves; Mary Wong; ; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thank you, Anne. You are welcome to copy me on the message to Martin, if you are able, and I will follow-up with him shortly thereafter. Otherwise, I will follow-up with him tomorrow regardless. Angie On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Seeing no comments on my draft to Martin sent to the list March 18, I will forward. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D066ED.8AEC5210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:33 AM To: 'Angie Graves' Cc: Mary Wong; >; Ron Andruff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Angie, for volunteering to address this informally with Martin. I will simply let him know your are going to follow up as the SCI rep from the BC. I do wonder, however, whether we should be providing a somewhat formal response to the effect that the SCI can only consider questions raised by Council or a group chartered by Council. This would provide a consistent record of responding correctly from a procedural standpoint. I also think we should note this issue in relation to our ?periodic review? responsibilities in relation to the GNSO Operating Procedures generally and make sure we take stock of the status of the issue at that time. I therefore propose to respond to Martin using a modified version of one of Mary?s previously drafted paragraphs (shown in black below) as follows: Martin, Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of potential ?vote switching? among constituencies. Although the BC Charter team presents an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the SCI at this time since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet formulated or presented to Council a plan for periodic review of the Operating Procedures which might involve review of issues related to 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures, both of which address the rule that "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has volunteered to discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be explored further within the BC. Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause. Since the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and suggestions for mitigation of this potential problem. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify its own process for charter amendment. We hope the above is helpful to the BC?s Charter team deliberations. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D066ED.8AEC5210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Mary Wong; >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear all, If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that Martin discovered. Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI: "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." Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Regards, Angie On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Mary, Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this question. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D066ED.8AEC5210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM Cc: >; Ron Andruff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly rather than with individual SG/Cs. On the question of whether the BC?s question raises the broader question of the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for further/future review at the appropriate time. Thanks and 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 > Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises. I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither, since it is chartered by ICANN. However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section 6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up. Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's, which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships would just delay consideration. It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter (or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us by the Council. I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers" and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an SG/C is revising its charter. Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options, and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too. Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hello everyone, Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than as a separate letter would work too. On Amr?s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that each SG/C ? in the current GNSO structure ? is obliged to include procedures for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be renewed and reconfirmed by the Board ? this took place in early 2009. Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below. Dear Martin, Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO?s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO?s rules or procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the remit of the SCI. The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason that the ICANN?s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment of each group?s charter is therefore a matter for that group?s internal deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic reviews of each group?s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN Bylaws). Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC?s consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community. In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability. Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In line therefore with the concept of community?based bottom?up governance, if a substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is coordinating this effort on the community?s behalf, perhaps through the BC representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well. I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community?s efforts to better understand and improve these rules and processes. With best regards, Anne Aikman-Scalese 2015 Chair, SCI From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43 To: Mary Wong > Cc: ">" >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Hi, I haven?t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the discussion was headed in an agreeable direction. I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue doesn?t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by others, I don?t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn?t a policy issue, I honestly don?t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don?t think it would be harmful for the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO?s SGs/Cs. Isn?t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn?t find one. May be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision. Thanks. Amr On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Dear Angie and everyone, Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments ? I think we are both saying very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review - a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each SG/C?s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's. Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC, which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover, nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein. Thanks and 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: Angie Graves > Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52 To: Anne >, Mary Wong >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Ron Andruff > Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, Mary and SCI, I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary Wong's pending response, I defer to her. I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution to the potential for abuse of voting rights. Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope. I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue, requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency, ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership. Thoughts? Thank you, Angie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: > Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Angie Graves >, ">" >, Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Ron Andruff > Dear Anne, Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted. 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! From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC at HSBC Cc: 'Mary Wong' >, Julie Hedlund >, ">" >, 'Ron Andruff' >, 'Angie Graves' > Date: 07/03/2015 22:20 Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Martin, Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam. Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: martinsutton at hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Dear Anne, As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful. 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! From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" > Date: 26/02/2015 23:21 Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching ________________________________ Thank you Anne, much appreciated. Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT To: Martin C SUTTON Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI. 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ________________________________ ----------------------------------------- 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Mar 25 18:21:21 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:21:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B76C11E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Martin, Thank you for your communication of February 26 raising the issue of potential ?vote switching? among constituencies. The SCI response to your question was developed after full discussion on the SCI list. Although it took a while to sort out the procedural issues, we believe we have arrived at the appropriate answer. Although the BC Charter team presents an interesting issue, the question is not properly before the SCI at this time since (1) we did not receive the question from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council and (2) we have not yet formulated or presented to Council a plan for periodic review of the Operating Procedures which might involve review of issues related to 6.1.2(j) and 6.2.6(d) of these Procedures, both of which address the rule that "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than one Group." Angie Graves is the primary BC representative to the SCI and has volunteered to discuss this topic with you informally so that it can be explored further within the BC. Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by the BC Charter Review Team at this time, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause. Since the question arose during the BC subteam?s discussion of a revision of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and suggestions for mitigation of this potential problem. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is charged with specifying its own process for charter amendment. We hope the above is helpful to the BC?s Charter Review Team?s deliberations. Thank you, Anne GNSO SCI Chair, 2015 [cid:image001.gif at 01D0663E.C830C7F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | 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 __________________________________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: