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@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 23:39 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
I agree that this is not initially an SCI issue, and certainly not our issue to bring to the Council.
Which in no way diminishes the issue, or even my potential concerns about the issue. SCI is just not the first stop on the path.
On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps I could report on it to the G-council.
But that does not strike me as the correct approach, unless I am reporting it as something we did not take on and kicked back. I think that if the CSG/BC wants this issue to be dealt with by the G-Council, it makes the most sense for them to make their case to the G-Council themselves.
As a member of the group it is my belief that the only correct action for the SCI is to send it back to the BC with an indication that the proper approach to the SCI is through the GNSO Council.
avri
On 27-Feb-15 10:10, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions, Avri and Greg! The GNSO Review topic is one that I believe will be on the agenda for either the next or following Council meeting. As such, perhaps Avri (as a Council member and Council liaison to the SCI) with staff support (as needed) can bring up this issue at the appropriate time? Speaking as a staffer, I feel I obliged to state that Greg’s latter point – logical though it is – seems to raise broader questions concerning the appropriate scope of SG/C self-governance that go beyond the SCI’s remit and that will most likely require consideration either as part of the GNSO Review or Council determination, or both.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 19:53 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
This could be a good issue for the GNSO review. However, I think an amendment to Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (which cover SG/C voting issues) would be a more elegant and consistent solution, rather than having each SG/C amend its own charter with its own rules regarding "carpet-baggers," The inconsistent results that could arise from that can only be imagined.
Greg
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Mary for your reply. I want to add one thing, any such consideration more likely belongs in the GNSO Review as that is the group looking at how we organize our corner of bottom-up multistakeolder activities. Stakeholder group charters are approved by the Board as 'negotiated' between the SIC and the SGs. Constituencies are approved in a process defined by the SIC complemented by conditions defined in the SG charter. I do agree that there is complexity in dealing with the issue of a large corporation with many divisions, subsidiaries, employees, goals and business lines having only a vote in only one SG. Conveniently this may be the right time to get such considerations put on the table for the GNSO Review.
On a technicality. we have specific rules about who has standing to present cases to the SCI.
For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can make such requests.
The first line refers, obliquely to the template Anne refered to and the staff is working on. Mary, thanks for the update.
The second line refers to the issue of standing to submit such a template to the SCI. We actually had the specific discussion on whether SG and C had standing. As the SCI charter indicates we decided that they did not and they needed to bring issues in through the GNSO Council. I am sure we would all agree that the SG/C are not chartered by the GNSO Council.
thanks avri
On 27-Feb-15 07:05, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Anne and everyone,
As an integral part of the bottom up consensus model, issues of voting and membership in each Stakeholder Group and Constituency are determined by their respective charters. Each SG or C develops and approves its own charter (as appropriate) and the Bylaws merely provide that the Board can review a group’s charter periodically. It therefore follows that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not provide for the review, amendment or approval of an SG’s or C’s charter by a body other than that particular SG/C. The GNSO Operating Procedures do, however, prescribe certain common standards to be followed by each SG and C in its charter and operations, such as transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and representation. Accordingly, the Operating Procedures also specify that a group member’s voting rights must be spelled out clearly in the group’s charter, and that a legal or natural person may not be a voting member of more than one group.
In line with the above-noted principles, the issue that Martin raises would seem to be something that the SGs and Cs will need to work out for and amongst themselves. As such, we suggest that the BC leadership consider initiating a discussion with other SG/C leaders on this point, to see if this is a matter that warrants either a revision of or addition to each group’s charter. In addition, the BC itself may internally wish to propose such an update to its own charter, which it is of course at liberty to do as part of its ongoing self-governance (regardless of whether other SG/Cs wish to revise their own charters in the same way).
As to your second question, staff has begun working on the action items noted in Singapore,, as we offered to do, and we will shortly be providing Avri with the basic template that she can use to present the topic to the GNSO Council for its consideration. At the moment, I do not know if it will be on the Council’s agenda for its March meeting, as that will depend on the Council chairs’ determination as to urgency and deadlines of other projects and topics. I expect that if it does not make it on to the agenda for the March meeting, it will likely be on the list for inclusion at the next one.
I hope this helps!
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892> Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 15:42 To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org> Subject: FW: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Dear SCI members,
Below is a written request to SCI from a member of the Business Constituency Charter Review Team. I am wondering whether this request must come officially from the BC in order to be considered by SCI.
Separately, in the Singapore meeting, after delivery of the SCI report, Avri volunteered to draft a template for GNSO requests to SCI and to prepare drafts for Council of the two “immediate issue” requests mentioned in the SCI report, that is (1) friendly amendments to motions and (2) whether or not resubmitted motions are eligible for waiver of the ten day advance notice for motions. I understand that Avri will be reviewing draft language for these requests with the Council. It may make sense for us to see a draft and provide some comments, but that is up to Avri.
So the questions for staff are:
1. Do I need to tell Martin Sutton (see note below) that the request must be submitted by the BC itself?
2. Where do the “friendly amendment” and “applicability of 10 day waiver to resubmitted motions” action items from the GNSO Council meeting in Singapore stand at this time?
Thank you,
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
**
* *
*From:*martinsutton@hsbc.com [mailto:martinsutton@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
martinsutton@hsbc.com
Website
www.hsbc.com <http://www.hsbc.com/>
__________________________________________________________________ Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** **| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*