Avri,
Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to
Sections:

1) 4.2, 
2) the entirety of 6; and 
3) the entirety of Section 11. 

The following is the NPOC position on Section 6:

For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and
the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations
accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes
standardized exams.  Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and
copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure
these tools are made available as best as possible.  Specifically we are
pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark
Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies
and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute
its missions and important work.

Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have
to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark
Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New
gTLD Scorecard.  We need these tools, such as the Trademark
Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in
mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit
organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in
the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse.  While we recognize
these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we
need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible.
Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable.  We request the
Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations
as you move forward in your consultations.




-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new
gTLDs

Hi,

I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy
Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as
currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing)

I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position,
especially as regards issue 6.

thanks

a.



On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary,
> 
> Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight
deadline.
> 
> 
> I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but
> after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was
> submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between
NCUC
> and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve.  I think it is
> important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC
> colleagues do not support the conclusions and content.  I would ask
that
> you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the
members
> of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency.
> 
> From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective
> and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its
> philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online
> (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the
disaster
> in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the
> positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I
> acknowledge the difference in perspectives.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Debbie
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] Committee
> Cc: NCSG Members List
> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs
> 
> Hi,
> 
> With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I
> intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated.
> 
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S
> corecard+March+2011
> 
> I have not finished the table at the bottom  yet, but will be working
on
> that during the meeting.
> 
> Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or
rough
> consensus on wording changes, I will make changes.  The views in this
> have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in
statements
> and elsewhere.  The original ratings were done with the help of
> Konstantinos and Robin.  They have been reviewed by Mary.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy