It may not be a simple thing to figure out how to categorize an NPO. An
NPO can have both non-commercial interests and commercial interests (aside
from representing commercial entities, an NPO can engage in commercial
activities, for example selling things for a fee, as long as it has no
private investors).
Red Cross' program interests are non-commercial, but its trademark/brand
interests are commercial. IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken, trademarks are
issued for "commercial" activity, regardless of the status of the actor
and regardless of other non-commercial activities it may engage in.
Red Cross may indeed more properly belong in the IPC (I don't recall if
the IPC was intended to end up in the CSG), if its main interests with
regard to ICANN are about IP, especially trademarks and brands.
Regardless of Red Cross' program activity, its membership in ICANN
supporting organizations ought to be channeled through its primary
interests and purposes at ICANN, especially in cases where those interests
explicitly define fundamental differences between different advisory
groups.
If, in fact, Red Cross is trying to "infiltrate" the non-commercial
community at ICANN in order to contribute a point of view more properly
voiced in the IPC (this is the elephant in the living room, right?), then
I would think it really ought to join the IPC, where it will find common
purpose. I don't think IPC has anything against NPO members, does it?
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 2:48 pm, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:26
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "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]
>
>
>
>
>
|
