Tamir,

I agree with you. Let me clarify that I'm not advocating for third party
involvement, just suggesting the internal membership admission group uses
an evidence-based approach (with no need to go to a third party); just
apply the criteria in such a way that a third party would objectively
arrive at the same conclusion/ decision about membership... maybe too
idealistic?.. but evaluators do use this approach...

Cheers, Alain

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ** ** ** **
>
> Hi Alain,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the inform**at**ion, I will make sure to do my homework!****
>
> ** **
>
> I suppose my thinking is th**at** a.) viewing the number of emails this
> list gener**at**es on a daily basis, dialogue does ot seem to have broken
> down (many of these appear to be from you/responses to concerns raised by
> you) and b.) imposing external oversight over membership decisions of a
> stakeholder group such as this raises, in my eyes, more issues than it
> resolves.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Tamir****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* November 14, 2011 3:25 PM
>
> *To:* Tamir Israel
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Question about NCUC faq rel**at**ing to membership
> ****
>
>  ** **
>
> Hi Tamir,****
>
> ** **
>
> interesting!...Thanks for sharing.****
>
> ** **
>
> BTW, no apologies needed... ****
>
> ** **
>
> I understand the appeal fe**at**ure...right now the balance of power
> within NCSG would make it ineffective. Appealing or using ombdusman should
> be a last resort when dialogue has broken down. Much more deesirable to
> look **at** the facts, most often then, the decision becomes obvious.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think an organiz**at**ion interested in ICANN can choose to join the
> Constituency th**at** makes the most sense for th**at** organiz**at**ion...
> and use the St**at**ement of Interest (SOI) to be transparent about
> secondary interests or apparent conflicts of interest... Where I have a
> concern is when those "other" interests are not declared **at** all...
> and/or th**at** SOIs are not available... It always raise the issue if
> this is as a result of neglect or by design... neither options are much
> desirable!****
>
> ** **
>
> Indeed, all this is needed to keep ICANN a true multi-stakeholder organiz*
> *at**ion. Bill Clinton, like him or not, made th**at** very clear **at**his
> ****San Francisco**** address during ICANN 40. His text should be
> required reading for all new comers to ICANN and a good refresher for all.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers, Alain****
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 **at** 3:05 PM, Tamir ****Israel**** <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:****
>
> Hi Alain,****
>
>  ****
>
> Thank you for clarifying this for me. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I apologize if I am merely rehashing m**at**ters th**at** have already
> been addressed (I am somewh**at** new to the list). From wh**at** I
> understand, it is fairly common for groups such as this to assess
> membership internally with an appeal process. Th**at** appears to be the
> practice for other constituency groups: ****
>
>  ****
>
> http://www.ipconstituency.org/join-the-ipc/ ****
>
> http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/ ****
>
> http://www.bizconst.org/responsibilities.htm ****
>
> http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm ****
>
>  ****
>
> I think this is to some extent unavoidable. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I note with some amusement th**at** my own legal clinic (CIPPIC) would
> likely qualify for both the IP and the Bus constituencies, given a very
> narrow interpret**at**ion, because, while we advoc**at**e in the public
> interest, we are composed of copyright lawyers and do on occasion consult
> with for-profit e-commerce organiz**at**ions where this will further the
> public interest. However, were we to do so, I think it would pose serious
> challenges for a multi-stakeholder model such as th**at** ICANN aspires
> to.****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Tamir****
>
>  ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* November 14, 2011 2:36 PM
> *To:* Tamir Israel
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Question about NCUC faq rel**at**ing to membership****
>
>  ****
>
> Tamir,****
>
>  ****
>
> no objection **at** all... as an applied research grantmaking
> practitioner in the past, as well as a retired evalu**at**ion consultant
> for intern**at**ional development agencies, I have seen the benefits of
> assessments being made on the basis of facts (or evidence if you prefer)
> which I define as objectively verifiable by an independant and uninterested
> third party. I suggest th**at** norm be followed for admitting members
> into our constituencies and stakeholders' group.
>
> Alain****
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 **at** 2:03 PM, Tamir ****Israel**** <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:****
>
> Hi there,****
>
>  ****
>
> I just wanted to clarify if you’re objection is to **at**tempts **at**assessing ‘real non-commercial’ in general, or to specific line-drawing
> with respect to one applic**at**ion (Olympic committee). If the objective
> is to ensure true represent**at**ion of non-commercial interests, legal
> (or .org) non-profit st**at**us is not enough, I think. It would be far
> too easy to game, as any commercial interest can quite easily set up a
> non-profit wing. In fact, it’s fairly common practice for industry or
> business groups to set up non-profits precisely for the purpose of
> advancing commercial interests. I can think of many examples.****
>
> The legal criteria for ‘non-profit’ rel**at**e to financial structuring,
> not to ‘interests advanced’. There do not appear to be any requirements for
> .org registr**at**ion. Given this, I think it is incumbent upon NCSG to
> do some sort of assessment to ensure th**at** it remains represent**at**ive
> of non-commercial interests.****
>
>  ****
>
> Best,****
>
> Tamir****
>
>  ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *Alain Berranger
> *Sent:* November 13, 2011 12:23 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Question about NCUC faq rel**at**ing to membership****
>
>  ****
>
> Meanwhile, I think we can only be taken seriously inside and outside ICANN
> and do meaningful work, if we have hundred more if not thousands of NGO/NFP
> members... so arguing about this NGO or this NFP being a "real
> non-commercial" seems counterproductive to me!... You will surely agree
> with me th**at** academics support evidence-based decisions and the
> definition of an NGO/NFP is not rocket science neither...****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> 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 represent**at**ive, Chasquinet Found**at**ion, 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
> 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 represent**at**ive, Chasquinet Found**at**ion, 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