Hi Avri
Could point me to the section in our proposed Charter on constituencies?
Ta
R
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
-----Original Message-----
From: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:45:21
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
hi,
A constituency need to be international in scope.
Not any individual member.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
a.
On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:24, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
> Hi Avri
>
> Why "international in scope" ?
>
> I have an organisation in mind that is just focused on Australian consumers.....
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>
> Hi,
>
> Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed constituency, I would not think that mattered.
>
> The CSG's IPC is a related to Commercial trademark concerns, while a new NCSG constituency, all things being equal, would be concerned with the Non Commercial aspects of trademarks. (not being a trademark expert i will not attempt to distinguish between the two, but it has become apparent even to a non lawyer like myself that the two categories of concerns are distinct)
>
> I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues that group wishes to deal with, but:
>
> - is it composed non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non commercial members
> - does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN issues
> - does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies
> - is it international in scope
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 8 Nov 2010, at 19:01, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> This might be a compelling argument for me if in fact the IPC did not
>> exist as a separate constituency itself.
>>
>> But the IPC's very existence seems to speak of an explicit litmus test
>> that is unique in the GNSO. In short, this litmus test is special, unlike
>> any other litmus tests, because it has its own formal constituency in GNSO
>> already.
>>
>> Given this precedent in the GNSO, I would think it bears careful
>> consideration.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
>> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, November 8, 2010 3:47 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tend to think that agencies like the Red Cross, which are essential
>>> public service organizations and/or charities do belong in the NCSG since
>>> their primary purpose is a non commercial purpose - helping people without
>>> thought for profit.
>>>
>>> I think the fact that they have trademark concerns that may conflict with
>>> the other trademark concerns in the NCSG is beside the point, that is part
>>> of NCSG being a broad tent for all non profit/ non commercial
>>> organizations, be they advocacy, service, charity, education ...
>>>
>>> What is most important to me, and I thought to the NCSG, is that the main
>>> purpose of the organization and its members, if it is an aggregate, be
>>> something other then profit or commercial intersts. This is something
>>> which I think is the case with the 80+ non profit organizations that came
>>> into the NCSG via their history as NCUC members. And that include the
>>> Red Cross, whether International or National.
>>>
>>> I do not think we need litmus test on the issues a constituency or its
>>> members believe in as long as the driving concern is a non profit and non
>>> commercial concern.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 8 Nov 2010, at 18:22, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, Red Cross's trademarks are protected by the Geneva Convention
>>>> 1864 - so GAC can look after it. Even in the US, misuse of the emblem is
>>>> a criminal offence.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt very much that the Geneva Convention requires a "thick WHOIS"
>>>> for the benefit of humanitarian aid. For the benefit of trademark
>>>> lawyers and oppressive Governments, perhaps.
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Kimberley James Heitman
>>>> www.kheitman.com
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Rosemary Sinclair
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 6:48 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>>>
>>>> However there are some NFPs run for not for profit purposes who belong
>>>> in NCSG and have interests to protect in domain names space. For me they
>>>> include Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontiers, ACCAN, ..... But not ATUG
>>>> (altho we are a NFP org) as our work is on behalf of businesses, cheers
>>>> Rosemary
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
>>>>
>>>> From: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:26 +1100
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> ReplyTo: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>>>
>>>> I agree that a constituency that advocates for commercial interests
>>>> properly belongs in the Commercial Stakeholder Group. NCSG is the only
>>>> place at ICANN that is specifically reserved for NON-commercial
>>>> interests as their goal. It seems this trademark group (NPOC) belongs
>>>> in the CSG since it is primarily concerned with commercial interests -
>>>> especially trademarks and brands. It is not enough to be set up as a
>>>> non-for-profit organization to belong in NCSG. Thousands of
>>>> not-for-profit organizations are set up to support commercial interests
>>>> (like the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, etc) -- but they are set up to benefit
>>>> COMMERCE, so they would properly belong in the CSG.
>>>>
>>>> It is important that this distinction is made early-on in the formation
>>>> of the NCSG - or it will be entirely over-run by commercial interests
>>>> set up as not-for-profits. Of course these groups are welcome at ICANN,
>>>> but they really belong in the CSG.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the IP-owner agenda of the NPOC, it's no surprise that there
>>>> is going to be considerable resistance to commercial interests being
>>>> asserted within the NCSG. Obviously the proper place for its shadowy
>>>> members is within the Intellectual Property Constituency with the other
>>>> IP lawyers.
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Kimberley James Heitman
>>>> www.kheitman.com
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Amber Sterling
>>>> Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 11:26 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: NPOC Q&A Document
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your questions and patience. Attached is the Q&A document
>>>> we created to address your questions about the NPOC. We will send
>>>> updated information regarding our membership towards the end of
>>>> November.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Amber
>>>>
>>>> Amber Sterling
>>>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
>>>> Association of American Medical Colleges
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
|
