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.

Civil Society organizations face a number of operational concerns, both 
around DNS and in general in the Internet ecosystem. For the most part 
their own "brand protection" issues go beyond and are a bit different 
from those for commercial organizations. They have to do with integrity, 
with abuse and with fraud. They are not mainly about the issues that 
would trigger "in house" ICANN processes, or even make it to court. The 
current proposed trademark protection regulations being considered by 
the EU/EC, where NPOC took a position, is a case in point. This was not 
something to be brought to ICANN, although ICANN and its constituencies 
could take positions on the regulations. If there is a confusion here it 
is that NPOC is looking at operational concerns from the perspective of 
its constituency, Civil Society organizations, and not just from an 
ICANN-centric perspective. I am prepared to defend that wider 
perspective should someone wish to debate it.

As for who works with whom on what here, and the involvement of IP 
lawyers and ICANN staff in this Webinar, first, that has to be 
understood in the above context, the operational concerns of Civil 
Society organizations, and not the history of these issues with ICANN. 
Second, we expect the Webinar to be a learning experience not only for 
the participants, but also for the presenters, including NPOC, the IP 
community, and ICANN itself. This is about the operational concerns 
faced by Civil Society organizations today, and those challenges coming 
on the road ahead, of which there are a number. It is not about 
marketing this or that, or dealing with the baggage of old intra-ICANN 
issues. Let the initiative be judged by its fruits, not within a context 
of old outdated intra-ICANN differences.

Sam L., Chair, NPOC Policy Committee (/In planes for the next 20+ hours 
so I will be slow to respond to further comments/)
On 2015-02-04 5:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Lori
>
> Actually, I think this is very healthy and useful discussion.  I don’t 
> actually sense that there's antipathy at work here, but rather just a 
> desire for clarity and transparency about what we’re all doing why and 
> who we’re doing it with.  That is in everyone’s interest.
>
> I think it’d be great if NPOC really focused in on operational 
> concerns such as trademark protection for CSOs.  That it would do so 
> was the understanding we reached with Debbie and Amber at the 
> Cartagena meeting in December 2010 when they agreed to change the name 
> from the proposed Not-for-Profit Constituency (which was problematic 
> since NCUC’s members are also nonprofit) to the Not-for-Profit 
> Operational Concerns Constituency, but subsequently things often got 
> more blurry.  ... [Text deleted ]