I agree. On 9 November 2010 20:10, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Whether of not NPOC's particular organizations are organized as nonprofits > is only the first question. > > The 2nd question is: Are the policy goals the org (NPOC in this case) > wants to achieve *commercial* in nature? Trademark rights are generally > considered commercial rights (intended to prevent consumer confusion among > competing brands regardless of who holds them). Nonprofits are legally > entitled to own trademark rights and I don't think anyone quibbles with > that. But the specific advancement of trademark rights (whether done by an > entity legally classified as commercial or noncommercial) is commercial > activity that belongs in the CSG. > > NCSG is the only place at ICANN that is supposed to be driven solely by > concerns OTHER THAN commercial concerns. All of the other constituencies in > GNSO are driven by commercial concerns. The specific design of ICANN was to > too keep at least one space clear of concerns OTHER THAN commercial concerns > to enter the policy process. > > I don't think anyone has a problem with these entities advocating for > commercial positions at ICANN. It just needs to be done in the appropriate > space - the CSG. > > Best, > Robin > > On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Rosemary Sinclair wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > For me the distinction is that "Vodafone" is driven by its > owners/shareholders to make profits - there is a huge and very clear > distinction between for profit and not for profit organisations in my view > having worked for both. > > Its Foundation etc would be there because of current "good corporate > practice" to demonstrate Corporate Social Responsibility in its Annual > Report > > cheers > > Rosemary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Nuno Garcia > Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:45 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Petition to form a new ICANN constituency > > Avri. you are looking at both organizations the way they want you to. > Vodafone, as many other companies has a foundation that helps needed > people, > and I'm pretty sure that you would agree that some salaries and benefits > from Red Cross executives can touch the limit of the obscene. > > When you look under the hood, you may find out that the differences are not > that significative. > > Please note, I'm not against companies having foundations or profits, nor > against Red Cross paying its employees, far from that. Its just that > holding > a decision position may not be compatible with some naif points of view. > > And I would say that our different points of view are quite clear by now on > this issue. > > Best regards, > > Nuno > > On 9 November 2010 14:36, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On 9 Nov 2010, at 05:18, Nuno Garcia wrote: > > > > > Red Cross, for one. How can one distinguish Red Cross from, let us say, > > Vodafone? Probably the single point of distinction is that Red Cross does > > accept volunteer work (and Vodafone does not). And of course, the types > of > > services they render (but this distinguishes all other organizations, > > right?). Yet, they only render services to the communities that are their > > target if and when someone funds these services. > > > > > > > > > I think that the distinction are far greater that that. > > > > On sells a commercial service and is oriented to making profits for > > investors but charging customers fees and they provide a service based on > an > > agreement with customers. > > > > The other has a mission of helping people in disastrous situations and > gets > > it work done by asking for donations and provide a service based on dire > > need. > > > > I have no problem telling the difference between them. > > > > a. > > > > > > > > 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] > > > >