On 10/11/2012 12:33 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Shouldn't the ISP constituency be involved in this discussion?
>
> From the application documents, looks like they are trying to create 
> an association, rather than being an already established group.
>
> Perhaps as a member of NPOC rather than a new constituency?


Is NPOC an organization sheltering for-profits?


Norbert Klein


>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012, 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.
>