Hi,

I have added this information to the web page.
I will note during the meeting that you have a minority view on these 3 areas and will refer the workshop participants to the webpage.  

a.


On 14 Mar 2011, at 13:54, <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Avri,
> Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to
> Sections:
> 
> 1) 4.2, 
> 2) the entirety of 6; and 
> 3) the entirety of Section 11. 
> 
> The following is the NPOC position on Section 6:
> 
> For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
> Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and
> the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations
> accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes
> standardized exams.  Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and
> copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. 
> 
> We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure
> these tools are made available as best as possible.  Specifically we are
> pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark
> Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies
> and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute
> its missions and important work.
> 
> Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have
> to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark
> Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New
> gTLD Scorecard.  We need these tools, such as the Trademark
> Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in
> mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit
> organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in
> the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse.  While we recognize
> these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we
> need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible.
> Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable.  We request the
> Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations
> as you move forward in your consultations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: Hughes, Debra Y.
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new
> gTLDs
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy
> Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as
> currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing)
> 
> I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position,
> especially as regards issue 6.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary,
>> 
>> Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight
> deadline.
>> 
>> 
>> I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but
>> after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was
>> submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between
> NCUC
>> and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve.  I think it is
>> important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC
>> colleagues do not support the conclusions and content.  I would ask
> that
>> you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the
> members
>> of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency.
>> 
>> From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective
>> and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its
>> philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online
>> (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the
> disaster
>> in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the
>> positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I
>> acknowledge the difference in perspectives.  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Debbie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask] Committee
>> Cc: NCSG Members List
>> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I
>> intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated.
>> 
>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S
>> corecard+March+2011
>> 
>> I have not finished the table at the bottom  yet, but will be working
> on
>> that during the meeting.
>> 
>> Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or
> rough
>> consensus on wording changes, I will make changes.  The views in this
>> have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in
> statements
>> and elsewhere.  The original ratings were done with the help of
>> Konstantinos and Robin.  They have been reviewed by Mary.
>> 
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy
> 
> 
> ----
> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy