-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi - I also agree with the position put forward by Milton. APC works a
lot in countries where large sectors of the public are only able to
access the internet in public places like cyber cafes (in fact in
India, our member there Digital Empowerment Foundation
http://defindia.net/ indicates that about 33% of all internet users in
India use access in public cyber cafes - second only to their workplace).
But just because cyber cafe operators offer services to the public
does not mean they are non-commercial. Practically the entire CSG
offers their services to the public and make profits from doing so.
They are businesses with commercial interests and should really join
that stakeholder group to promote their interests.


Joy



On 12/10/2012 12:30 p.m., David Cake wrote:
> Total agreement with Milton here. We are not the Non-profit
> stakeholder group, we are the non-commercial - a non-profit group
> that represents commercial entities is a commercial group.
> 
> And yes, existing CSG groups not wanting to let them in is not a
> reason to keep them out.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> On 12/10/2012, at 6:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Amr: The issue here is not whether CCAOI, the organization
>> itself, is a nonprofit. The point is that cybercafés, which they
>> purport to represent, are basically businesses. I love cybercafé
>> business, and consider them to be on the front lines of
>> developing internet access in developing and some urban and
>> rural areas – but they are businesses. Cybercafes are internet
>> service providers.
>> 
>> I am sure we would have common ground with them on a number of
>> policy issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that they belong
>> in the CSG.
>> 
>> Indeed, it would be fantastic if they would join the Commercial 
>> Stakeholders Group, or even the ISP constituency (which is what
>> they really are), because that part of the GNSO really needs to
>> be broadened.
>> 
>> There is a problem with the business and board people generally 
>> considering NCSG to be a “dumping ground” for people who aren’t 
>> allowed to be represented anywhere else. It is completely unfair
>> for the CSG to lock people like this out simply because they
>> won’t allow a new constituency to dilute their votes. It would be
>> all too convenient for the business interests to push all the
>> diversity into the NCSG and refuse to allow it themselves.
>> 
>> The solution to this is not to dilute and undermine NCSG by
>> adding a bunch of ISP businesses and calling them
>> “noncommercial,” but to broaden the CSG. Please help us in that
>> agenda.
>> 
>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
>> Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:20 AM 
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *Subject:* Re:
>> [NCSG-Discuss] Application For New GNSO Constituency in The NCSG
>> -- PIA-CC
>> 
>> I'm not sure I agree with labeling the CCAOI as a for-profit
>> entity. As per their application documents, they describe
>> themselves as:
>> 
>> "Though we, CCAOI, are an association, the approach followed by
>> us is that of an NGO. Right from our membership to the services
>> we provide, all are free of charge. In fact, we play a far more
>> responsible role for building the cybercafé ecosystem and are
>> also responsible for the users, majority of who fall in the age
>> group of 15-35 years as well as the VAS providers. India has over
>> 80 million internet (email) users today, out of which nearly 40%
>> access internet through cybercafés. We also have a forum for the
>> users and our ultimate objective is empowerment of the citizens
>> through Digitization."
>> 
>> However, I am not very convinced with their application,
>> particularly in Section 3.0: Uniqueness and Representational
>> Focus. It seems to me that they should have sought membership in
>> an already existing constituency within the NCSG rather than
>> creating a new one. IMHO, wether or not they should even be
>> granted membership is still debatable.
>> 
>> I am curious and would like to learn more about the nature of
>> the relationship between the CCAOI and the Department of
>> Information Technology of the Govt. of India, which is listed as
>> one of its national affiliates on the CCAIO website. I'm not
>> jumping to any conclusions, but it sounds very similar to the IT
>> clubs in youth centers in Egypt in terms of services and
>> objectives. The IT clubs are a government program funded and
>> operated by the Egyptian Ministry of Communications and
>> Information Technology that take place at youth centers (amongst
>> other facilities), which officially belong to an NGO, however are
>> also more-or-less financially dependent on funding and oversight
>> by the government. The NCSG charter frankly excludes governmental
>> organizations and departments from being members, but perhaps
>> does not address this sort of scenario as clearly as it should.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I agree - Non-Commercial means non-commercial. So the for profit
>> can go somewhere else.
>> 
>> On 10/10/2012 8:42 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>> 
>> ICANN's Silo model indeed produces a problem for this group. I
>> think what
>> 
>> they really need to do is split themselves for the purposes of 
>> ICANN formal
>> 
>> structures into two groups: "non-profit Public Internet Access"
>> and
>> 
>> "Cyber-cafes and other commercial shared computer access 
>> providers", apply
>> 
>> for NCSG/CSG group membership but agree amongst themselves that 
>> they will
>> 
>> coordinate strongly between them on promoting the clear common 
>> interests such
>> 
>> a group has.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I'm afraid I could not support the inclusion of for-profit
>> access providers
>> 
>> in an NCSG constituency as it violates the non-commercial 
>> principle of SG
>> 
>> membership.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQd3IsAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqknQIAJMIf2upwrVgF4J8vOpwy8TD
wD4Qpfa4WQp5yojyd3eR8z2p2ihoQ/EmScNSFKKGOSyGH0rW7h5z8eaEH2zAvrGY
khLI1RZP9pSyY8zu2OjrHVF0TQe9JVBvvapASTQ5TAx5aYqSHu5JDEnxKAfRdasD
7JvKtoB6OJdlLCmD9FI9klrPkEJFNkszg1JepGBc1OfPDTHkSC/g/7PceiZqIOFZ
njlbpL63LOhHwk5tf3uz3PHW0PFs8rQQ/W3XYDFXseMqf8H30WwwsjKMueCKRLRF
J83hcSCyoFQe/JaXzGM7EOasEQIpbKtYjTq6LADBT+1mK76jB/afurBO34KcvKU=
=KQL4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----