Dear Sam,

On 04/02/2015 6:53 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Bill and NCSG Colleagues,
>
> I have earlier address part of Bill's concerns but let me unpack his
> concerns into the single core point, which is clear in what has been
> written about the Singapore Pathfinder webinar. The core focus of NPOC
> efforts is the operational concerns of Not-for-Proft and Civil Society
> organizations, and since Not-For-Profits are Civil Society
> organizations, in the interest of brevity NPOC is using the term Civil
> Society organizations, and occasionally pointing out that the concerns
> and issues being address are individual concerns as well, just to
> remind all that NPOC is not forgetting about that area, but that is
> why NCUC exists as a sister group under NCSG.

Having worked for a civil society org for several years, we have had to
be extremely diligent in being extra clear on when we are advocating on
behalf of the general public and when we are advocating in our own
organizational interests. Otherwise we risk our credibility on both
fronts. As such, we tend to err on the side of over-emphasizing when the
latter situation arises (when we are advocating in our own
organizational interest and not in the public interest), while it is
generally assumed that in the absence of such a disclaimer we are
advocating in the public interest.

So, to take the current example, if the webinar is about how domain name
fraud has harmed consumers as a result of product confusion, that is one
thing, and we can debate about where to draw the lines there. I
personally think that if TM protection was primarily focused on
preventing customer harm, we would not have many of the free expression
concerns that tend to arise. Of course, that would lead to significantly
narrower protection for names. Regardless, though, if it's about
teaching civil society orgs how to protect their own IP (and why they
should) I would think that falls in bucket B (self-interest not public
interest).

Best regards,
Tamir