Alain,

I appreciate this offering, and I happen to be an example of someone who
holds a couple of .com domains but operates in an entirely not-for-profit
manner (my domains are used for essentially personal purposes, and there is
no revenue-generating function entailed -- I own the domains as an
individual, not as an organization), thus justifying my individual
membership in NCSG/NCUC.  (I've also done some work for IP Justice and
NCUC, largely back in 2007, as well as a bit for IGC.  I was previously on
staff at CPSR, and a few NCUC folks have had affiliations with that org as
well.)

When it comes to NCSG elections, however, in addition to overarching
philosophy as general context, what I'm personally really interested in is
where you come down on active issues of direct relevance to ICANN,
especially issues addressed by GNSO.  Privacy vs. access to registrant
information (i.e., due process) with respect to the WHOIS database.
Criteria for approving/rejecting gTLDs under the new policy (who has power
to veto and under what conditions and via what formal processes --
content-based?  trademark disputes?  "moral values"?  processes for
appeal?).  Some real nuts-and-bolts stuff relevant to representing us
meaningfully in this particular forum.

While the distinction that Marc draws can be important in motivating these
positions, it is ultimately the positions themselves that become most
important to us as a group.  Marc's point is sort of an indirect way of
getting at this, but why not aim at it directly.

So, do you support the privacy and due process interests of individual
domain registrants that may not have an institutional buffer to hide behind
with respect to WHOIS identifying data?  What is your position with respect
to ICANN's treatment of domains in the context of trademarks or in the
context of character strings that are linguistically meaningful in moral
terms?  Rights of national governments to veto gTLD applications (and the
appropriate role of the GAC at ICANN)?  Formal processes in gTLD
applications?

I am comfortable with your being new to NCSG.  I might be a little less
comfortable with your being new to ICANN per se, unless I can understand
how your general principles (or the general principles of those to whom you
will appeal for guidance) might inform your positions on ICANN-specific
policies, which is what this representation is all about.

Many other nominees here have substantial track records with respect to
ICANN policies -- they are "well-known quantities" here.  In the absence of
a track record there needs to be something else of a rough equivalent in
order to judge a candidacy.

Thanks,
Dan



At 12:09 PM +0200 9/11/11, Alain Berranger wrote:
>Greetings to all colleagues,
>
>I'm new to NCSG via NPOC and very few of you know me.
>
>I am quite comfortable with the civil society sector or third sector,
>having worked with it internationally all my life and in most continents.
>While it can be generally accepted by most that US Foundations holding a
>501 c 3 IRS status can be clearly considered not-for-profit, they cannot
>be considered as civil society, but as a benefactor of civil society. Yes,
>501 c 3 are a US construct, but philanthropy exists throughout the world.
>Civil society, in a global sense, really represents communities of all
>kinds that come together for social, political, religious, environmental,
>even economic purposes and are always not-for-profit. If they are for
>profit, they cannot be truly considered civil society. Now, it is possible
>for a nonprofit organization to have a commercial activity (it is
>sometimes called earned income) provided the surplus funds from these
>activities (selling T'-shirts, running training workshops, etc...) are
>ploughed back into the fundamental mission and activities of the
>organization. Like Muhammad Yunus once put it to me: "Grameen can be
>defined as a not-for-loss organization...." so while its main objective
>was empowering poor women by ensuring they have access to micro-credit,
>they could also sell the products made by these women (I paid $5 in the
>90's in Dhaka for a lovely hand wowen cotton shirt made in a village
>somewhere and which I'm still wearing today!...). Sellling shirts did not
>make Grameen a commercial entity.
>
>It would be interesting to me to discuss the status of universities or
>governments, in relation to their main activities and their fundraising
>practices...but I will leave this discussion to another moment, hopefully
>during the election.
>
>Alain BERRANGER
>
>On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Marc Perkel
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Many people in this group know each other very well. Some of us (me) know
>a few people here well. So in this election, once it becomes a contest, I
>think we should perhaps talk about what the candidates bring to the table.
>I think it's important that we make the best decision we can out of the
>outstanding candidates we have to choose from.
>
>For example, since this is the non-commercial constituency and the rest of
>ICANN is commercial I think we need people who understand that just
>because someone has a 501c3 IRS status or a .org domain name that doesn't
>mean they are non-commercial. There are plenty of places for commercial
>users to express their interests and the non-commercial side is not one of
>them. So I'd like to see people who see the bright line between commercial
>and non-commercial be the ones who get elected. I personally feel that the
>voice of money is a threat to the future of humanity and that someone has
>to speak for people. And that someone would be us.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
><http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk>http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
>Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
><http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>www.schulich.yorku.ca
>Trustee, GKP Foundation,
><http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org>www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
>Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas -
><http://www.focal.ca>www.focal.ca
>O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>Skype: alain.berranger