This might be a compelling argument for me if in fact the IPC did not
exist as a separate constituency itself.
But the IPC's very existence seems to speak of an explicit litmus test
that is unique in the GNSO. In short, this litmus test is special, unlike
any other litmus tests, because it has its own formal constituency in GNSO
already.
Given this precedent in the GNSO, I would think it bears careful
consideration.
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 Mon, November 8, 2010 3:47 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tend to think that agencies like the Red Cross, which are essential
> public service organizations and/or charities do belong in the NCSG since
> their primary purpose is a non commercial purpose - helping people without
> thought for profit.
>
> I think the fact that they have trademark concerns that may conflict with
> the other trademark concerns in the NCSG is beside the point, that is part
> of NCSG being a broad tent for all non profit/ non commercial
> organizations, be they advocacy, service, charity, education ...
>
> What is most important to me, and I thought to the NCSG, is that the main
> purpose of the organization and its members, if it is an aggregate, be
> something other then profit or commercial intersts. This is something
> which I think is the case with the 80+ non profit organizations that came
> into the NCSG via their history as NCUC members. And that include the
> Red Cross, whether International or National.
>
> I do not think we need litmus test on the issues a constituency or its
> members believe in as long as the driving concern is a non profit and non
> commercial concern.
>
> a.
>
> On 8 Nov 2010, at 18:22, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>
>> Actually, Red Cross’s trademarks are protected by the Geneva Convention
>> 1864 – so GAC can look after it. Even in the US, misuse of the emblem is
>> a criminal offence.
>>
>> I doubt very much that the Geneva Convention requires a “thick WHOIS”
>> for the benefit of humanitarian aid. For the benefit of trademark
>> lawyers and oppressive Governments, perhaps.
>> -----------------------
>> Kimberley James Heitman
>> www.kheitman.com
>> -----------------------
>>
>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Rosemary Sinclair
>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 6:48 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>
>> However there are some NFPs run for not for profit purposes who belong
>> in NCSG and have interests to protect in domain names space. For me they
>> include Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontiers, ACCAN, ..... But not ATUG
>> (altho we are a NFP org) as our work is on behalf of businesses, cheers
>> Rosemary
>> Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
>>
>> From: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:26 +1100
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> ReplyTo: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>
>> I agree that a constituency that advocates for commercial interests
>> properly belongs in the Commercial Stakeholder Group. NCSG is the only
>> place at ICANN that is specifically reserved for NON-commercial
>> interests as their goal. It seems this trademark group (NPOC) belongs
>> in the CSG since it is primarily concerned with commercial interests -
>> especially trademarks and brands. It is not enough to be set up as a
>> non-for-profit organization to belong in NCSG. Thousands of
>> not-for-profit organizations are set up to support commercial interests
>> (like the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, etc) -- but they are set up to benefit
>> COMMERCE, so they would properly belong in the CSG.
>>
>> It is important that this distinction is made early-on in the formation
>> of the NCSG - or it will be entirely over-run by commercial interests
>> set up as not-for-profits. Of course these groups are welcome at ICANN,
>> but they really belong in the CSG.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Looking at the IP-owner agenda of the NPOC, it’s no surprise that there
>> is going to be considerable resistance to commercial interests being
>> asserted within the NCSG. Obviously the proper place for its shadowy
>> members is within the Intellectual Property Constituency with the other
>> IP lawyers.
>> -----------------------
>> Kimberley James Heitman
>> www.kheitman.com
>> -----------------------
>>
>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Amber Sterling
>> Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 11:26 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: NPOC Q&A Document
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thank you for your questions and patience. Attached is the Q&A document
>> we created to address your questions about the NPOC. We will send
>> updated information regarding our membership towards the end of
>> November.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Amber
>>
>> Amber Sterling
>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
>> Association of American Medical Colleges
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>
|
