This seems a matter of the formal nesting of NCSG constituencies within
the SG itself. As a matter of NCSG membership, it would seem not to make
sense to allow commercial members of NCSG, and thus no constituency of
NCSG should allow commercial members either, at least not as active voting
members of NCSG.
If NPOC wants to further constrain the criteria for its membership, that
seems fine, but those criteria should be interpreted as *within* the
criteria for NCSG membership.
So while it is correct that "non-commercial" is different from
"non-profit" it seems to me that NPOC members that are also voting members
of NCSG must be both non-profit *and* non-commercial, according to an NCSG
definition of non-commercial (assuming NPOC members must also be
non-profit organizations).
Does this makes sense to everyone else? Does NPOC accept this
characterization?
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 Tue, November 15, 2011 3:27 pm, Nuno Garcia wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I think we had agreed on that not-for-profit is different of
> non-commercial.
>
> I see no reason why NPOC could not support a Chamber of Commerce
> application - this clearly falls within the scope of "non-profit"
> organization. And the same to workers unions, large cooperative
> organizations, foundations, political parties and so on. I recall that
> some
> private foundations have larger budgets than some countries.
>
> And with this thought I go and try to find more info on NPOC because now I
> am a bit worried...
>
> Best,
>
> Nuno Garcia
>
> On 15 November 2011 22:55, Alain Berranger
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Greetings Nicolas,
>>
>> I generally buy the Chambers of Commerce arguments... NPOC is not
>> submitting any Chamber of Commerce membership application... for the
>> USOC
>> case please refer to the stream of emails and we can exchange further,
>> if
>> you wish.
>>
>> Generally I think Avri's criteria of assessing what are the main
>> activities of an organization applying for membership is excellent. So
>> in
>> reference to the London games, NPOC would support an application by the
>> UK
>> Olympic Committee but not by the London olympic games organizing
>> committee
>> (See the distinction in Kelly's email response to Avri).
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Alain
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Nicolas Adam
>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> catching up on a lot of discussion folks. This debate may be more
>>> advance now than I am aware of.
>>>
>>> Alain,
>>>
>>> Don't make this about "being" or "not being" a *non-profit*. It is
>>> about
>>> being or not being *non-commercial*. Non-profit and non-commercial are
>>> objectivaly distinctive. one of the distinction we chose to make was
>>> about
>>> the commercial status of the org members themselves, which is a very
>>> objective way to discriminate.
>>>
>>> Tell me straight please, would you have wanted to draft rules that
>>> would
>>> have enabled Chambers of Commerce to apply for and receive NCSG
>>> membership?
>>> This is a trust-building or trust-breaking question as far as i'm
>>> concern.
>>> And a fundamental one at that.
>>>
>>> Also, why isn't the org in question interested in joining the CSG?
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/11/2011 2:27 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Kelly for putting evidence of USOC's not-for-profit status
>>> squarely on the table. It is now hoped that the NCSG-Executive
>>> Committee
>>> opponents to USOC's membership will change their minds and rally to the
>>> NPOC-Executive Committee's recommendation. Kudos to Avri for her mature
>>> and
>>> transparent attitude!
>>>
>>> I sincerely hope future discussions about pending and new NPOC members
>>> will be based solely on evidence, ie. facts verifiable by an
>>> independant
>>> and uninterested third party. Let it be clear, once again, that the
>>> NPOC
>>> Constituency will accept only non-commercial members, thus facilitating
>>> the
>>> work of the NCSG-Executive Committee on admission to the Stakeholders'
>>> Group.
>>>
>>> Best, Alain
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kelly Maser
>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you to Alain for speaking up to discuss why the U.S. Olympic
>>>> Committee is truly a non-profit entity. The USOC and its predecessor
>>>> organizations have been responsible for overseeing amateur sports in
>>>> this
>>>> country, not just at the elite level but also encouraging sports,
>>>> healthy
>>>> lifestyles, competition and fair play at the grassroots levels as
>>>> well.
>>>> The USOC has many member organizations, some of which are
>>>> community-based
>>>> organizations such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs of America,
>>>> the
>>>> Girl Scouts, etc. But the primary members are the National Governing
>>>> Bodies ("NGBs") for the individual sports (*e.g., *USA Track & Field,
>>>> USA Swimming, U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association, U.S. Figure Skating,
>>>> U.S.
>>>> Tennis Association). The majority of the USOC's budget goes to
>>>> support
>>>> athletes, either through direct grants or through funding the NGBs.
>>>> The
>>>> USOC also provides support to the NGBs (and their athletes) in terms
>>>> of
>>>> governance support, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports
>>>> psychology
>>>> and the like. The USOC also operates three U.S. Olympic Training
>>>> Centers
>>>> where thousands of athletes train each year. Here are a few
>>>> statistics for
>>>> you:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example, from 2002-2010, these fees were used to assist the USOC
>>>> in:
>>>>
>>>> (a) annually hosting approximately 25,000 athletes, coaches,
>>>> officials and program staff for the National Governing Bodies ("NGBs")
>>>> for
>>>> the individual Olympic sports at its three Olympic training centers
>>>> (located in Chula Vista, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado and
>>>> Lake
>>>> Placid, New York) and at its U.S. Olympic Education Center in
>>>> Marquette,
>>>> Michigan, at a cost of $360 million over that
>>>> period;
>>>>
>>>> (b) providing support to and sending elite U.S. athletes and
>>>> teams to national and international competitions, most notably the
>>>> Olympic
>>>> Games, at a cost of $80 million;
>>>>
>>>> (c) working with local communities and 19 different NGBs on
>>>> behalf of the Community Olympic Development Programs in Atlanta,
>>>> Georgia;
>>>> Chicago, Illinois; Springfield, Missouri; Moorestown, New Jersey; San
>>>> Antonio, Texas; Verona, Wisconsin; and Park City and Kearns, Utah;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (d) directing over $160 million in grants and services to
>>>> athletes, including monetary stipends, health services and benefits,
>>>> educational grants, and more;
>>>>
>>>> (e) providing additional support to 47 different National
>>>> Governing Bodies in the form of NGB Programs and Services including
>>>> sport
>>>> performance, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports science and
>>>> organizational support, at a cost of $235 million; and
>>>>
>>>> (f) funding the USOC's many other statutory functions.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if there are other questions that I could help
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Kelly**
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> *Kelly Maser **| Associate General Counsel|** **United States Olympic
>>>> Committee** **|** **Office**: 719.866.4115 |** **Cell**: 719.330.0266
>>>> |
>>>> ** **Fax**: 719.866.4839 | [log in to unmask]** |**
>>>> **www.teamusa.org*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Alain Berranger
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 3:09 PM
>>>> *To:* Avri Doria
>>>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Subject:* [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC
>>>> Teleconference on 8 November 2011
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thks Avri,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no appetite for minority appeal that I cannot hope to win under
>>>> current membership mindset, sense of entitlement, grand-fathering,
>>>> numbers
>>>> and distribution... but NPOC colleagues may decide differently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we need in general to follow evidence-based membership
>>>> criteria
>>>> and follow the same criteria for all. So my 4 arguments remain as far
>>>> as I
>>>> am concerned and can be verified by evidence (facts) not opinion,
>>>> hearsay,
>>>> bias, etc...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Different strokes for different folks? For instance, how can we have
>>>> NCUC/NCSG individual members working for a law firm or a telecom
>>>> company?
>>>> but we do. The NPOC membership is clear: all are not-for-profit and
>>>> only
>>>> play one side of the street.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the risk of repeating myself, national olympic committees are
>>>> not-for-profits working year in and year out for athletes and not to
>>>> be
>>>> confused with the games organizing committees which are for profit (or
>>>> at
>>>> least not for loss) once in a blue moon when the country is awarded
>>>> the
>>>> games...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For instance re London 2012: one needs to distingush between the games
>>>> organizers - http://www.london2012.*com*/
>>>> <http://www.london2012.com/> which
>>>> is for profit and get sponsors to support the 2012 games and the UK
>>>> Olympic
>>>> committee which every year supports UK athletes and get sponsors to
>>>> support
>>>> athletes- http://www.olympics.*org*.uk/ <http://www.olympics.org.uk/>
>>>>
>>>> Alain
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Assuming there are 14 members who agree with your position, the
>>>> charter
>>>> has provision for an appeal process that includes the possibility of
>>>> taking
>>>> it to a full membership vote if the difference of opinion cannot be
>>>> resolved.
>>>>
>>>> > 1. Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a full
>>>> vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which an appeal
>>>> can
>>>> be initiated:
>>>> >
>>>> > · If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
>>>> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
>>>> Committee
>>>> will first take the appeal under consideration.
>>>> >
>>>> > · If, after consideration of any documentation provided by
>>>> those
>>>> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision, the
>>>> NCSG-EC
>>>> and those making the appeal should attempt to negotiate a mutually
>>>> agreeable solution.
>>>> >
>>>> > · If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
>>>> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days, then an
>>>> NCSG
>>>> vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
>>>> >
>>>> > · For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
>>>> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
>>>> defined in
>>>> section 4.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some comments below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Nov 2011, at 15:16, Alain Berranger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dear Colleagues,
>>>> >
>>>> > I want to state I disagree with the decision to exclude the USOC.
>>>> For
>>>> 4 reasons:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1) Its vision: to enable America's athletes to realize their Olympic
>>>> and Paralympic dreams.
>>>>
>>>> That is its vision, but it is debatable that is main purpose is to
>>>> administer commercial licensing agreement. Or at least this seems to
>>>> be
>>>> the resumption of those who voted against their membership.
>>>>
>>>> The charter indicates:
>>>> "3. Is engaged in online activities that are primarily noncommercial,
>>>> including, e.g., advocacy, educational, religious, human rights,
>>>> charitable, scientific and artistic, and"
>>>>
>>>> So the question is, what are its primary activities, granting licenses
>>>> or supporting athletes. I have certainly heard arguments on both
>>>> sides of
>>>> this issue, and personally think it is a toss up. For example, it is
>>>> well
>>>> known that most olympians have to find their own funding in the US.
>>>> This
>>>> varies by country, but in the US, the US Olympic Committee does not
>>>> support
>>>> athletes as far as I have been able to discover. So what do they do
>>>> beyond
>>>> sanction events and licensing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 2) its mission: To support U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes in
>>>> achieving sustained competitive excellence and preserve the Olympic
>>>> ideals,
>>>> and thereby inspire all Americans.
>>>> >
>>>> > 3) It is a not-for-profit with IRS exemption under 501 c 3
>>>>
>>>> As the charter indicates, being not-for-profit is not sufficient. For
>>>> example the Chamber of Commerce in not-for-profit and yet obviously
>>>> not a
>>>> non-commercial entity. Specifically:
>>>>
>>>> "4. In the case of a membership-based organization, the organization
>>>> should not only be noncommercial itself, but should have a primarily
>>>> noncommercial focus, and the membership should also be primarily
>>>> composed
>>>> of noncommercial members. (E.g., a chamber of commerce, though it may
>>>> be a
>>>> noncommercial organization itself, and might even have some
>>>> noncommercial
>>>> members, is primarily composed of commercial organizations and has a
>>>> commercial focus and would not be eligible for membership.)"
>>>>
>>>> So the question becomes, who are the principles members? I do not
>>>> know
>>>> the answer to this.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > 4) fundraising is an activity of all not-for-profits, including
>>>> sponsoring, and thus does not make a not-for-profit a commercial
>>>> organization. I think you are confusing the USOC per se with the
>>>> various
>>>> olympic games hosting organizations set up for Lake Placid, Los
>>>> Angeles
>>>> games, etc...
>>>> >
>>>> > Alain
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > The new NCSG Executive Committee held its first tele-conference on
>>>> Tuesday and we made great progress, particularly with respect to
>>>> establishing a process for handling NCSG membership applications and
>>>> dealing with the NPOC applications that had come in since the
>>>> election. So
>>>> below are my notes from the EC meeting's discussion.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Robin
>>>> >
>>>> > NCSG-EC Teleconference - 8 Nov. 2011
>>>> > Transcript & mp3 recording:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meetings
>>>> > Attendance: Michael Carson, Rafik Dammak, Robin Gross, Milton
>>>> Mueller,
>>>> Klaus Stoll
>>>> > NCSG-EC Mtg Discussion Agenda:
>>>> >
>>>> > - Review of NCSG membership application procedures
>>>> >
>>>> > - Review of pending NCSG membership applications
>>>> >
>>>> > - Establishment of NCSG Financial Committee
>>>> >
>>>> > --------------------------------------------------
>>>> >
>>>> > MEETING NOTES:
>>>> >
>>>> > These 8 orgs were approved for NCSG membership:
>>>> > ALSAC / St. Jude
>>>> > Australian RedCross Society
>>>> > Church of God in Christ
>>>> > Goodwill Industries
>>>> > International Baccalaureate Organization
>>>> > The Association of NGOs, The Gambia (TANGO)
>>>> > Water Environment Research Foundation
>>>> > YMCA of The Gambia
>>>> >
>>>> > These 3 orgs were determined ineligible for NCSG membership:
>>>> > 1. Kaswesha Community Resource Center
>>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least
>>>> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter
>>>> Section
>>>> 2.2.1).
>>>> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain
>>>> name.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2. Civil Society Movement Against Tuberculosis in Sierre
>>>> Leone
>>>> (CISMAT-SL)
>>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least
>>>> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter
>>>> Section
>>>> 2.2.1).
>>>> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain
>>>> name.
>>>> >
>>>> > 3. US Olympic Committee:
>>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: USOC is substantially a major
>>>> sports
>>>> licensing business and NCSG is devoted to the protection of
>>>> noncommercial
>>>> interests.
>>>> > They were invited to join ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>> as the more appropriate place to protect their interests.
>>>> >
>>>> > These 7 orgs are undergoing further evaluation:
>>>> > Child Protection Alliance
>>>> > Information Technology Association of the Gambia
>>>> > National Coalition for the Homeless
>>>> > National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
>>>> > Pilots N Paws
>>>> > Tranquil Space Foundation
>>>> > Young Life
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ** Attached to this email is a flow chart to explain the agreed
>>>> process for handling NCSG Membership Applications going forward.
>>>> >
>>>> > A few notes on the procedures for handling NCSG Membership
>>>> Applications:
>>>> >
>>>> > Completed NCSG Membership applications should be submitted by the
>>>> Applicant to the email address [log in to unmask] for
>>>> consideration by the entire NCSG Executive Committee.
>>>> >
>>>> > NCSG-NCUC Membership application forms are available on the NCSG
>>>> wiki
>>>> (for individuals and for organizations).
>>>> >
>>>> > Members of the NCSG-EC have 2 weeks to conduct the required due
>>>> diligence on the applications (more flexible if a holiday).
>>>> >
>>>> > Decisions to approve membership applications require the full
>>>> consensus of the voting members of the NCSG Executive Committee (NCSG
>>>> Charter 2.4.2).
>>>> >
>>>> > Verification of a named official representative's authority to
>>>> represent an organizational applicant should be independently verified
>>>> by
>>>> the EC (NSCG Charter 2.2.4.1).
>>>> >
>>>> > Aggregate voting / representation is not permitted for
>>>> organizations.
>>>> Each organization must be represented by a different person. No
>>>> single
>>>> person (or group of persons, i.e., a law firm) can represent two or
>>>> more
>>>> organizations in NCSG at the same time. This policy discourages
>>>> attempts
>>>> to game the system through aggregating membership votes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Organizations with a nonprofit legal structure are nonetheless
>>>> ineligible for membership in NCSG if they are substantially a
>>>> commercial or
>>>> business activity and their interests are more appropriately
>>>> represented in
>>>> one of the commercial stakeholder groups (NCSG Charter 2.2.2).
>>>> >
>>>> > An organization's official representative to NCSG cannot be a GNSO
>>>> Council Representative for the Intellectual Property Constituency (or
>>>> other
>>>> officer or member of the IPC or CSG). Outside trademark lawyers are
>>>> discouraged as the official representative for an org to NCSG since
>>>> NCSG is
>>>> devoted to protecting noncommercial interests.
>>>> >
>>>> > ON A SEPARATE ISSUE:
>>>> > The EC is in the process of establishing a NCSG Financial Committee
>>>> (as per NCSG Charter 2.1. & 2.6.) and is looking for volunteers from
>>>> among
>>>> the NCSG membership - people with fundraising expertise and time to
>>>> devote
>>>> to NCSG fundraising activities and ICANN resource allocations. So
>>>> please
>>>> let an EC member know if you'd like to be considered for membership on
>>>> the
>>>> NCSG Financial Committee. Thank you!
>>>> > --------------------
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 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]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>>> > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
>>>> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>>> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>>> > interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>>> > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>>> > Skype: alain.berranger
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>>>
>>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>>>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>>>>
>>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>>>
>>>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>>> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>>> O:+1 514 484 7824 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704
>>>> 7824<%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
>>>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>
>>
>
|
