Hi Avri Could point me to the section in our proposed Charter on constituencies? Ta R Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:45:21 To: <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document hi, A constituency need to be international in scope. Not any individual member. Sorry I wasn't clear. a. On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:24, Rosemary Sinclair wrote: > Hi Avri > > Why "international in scope" ? > > I have an organisation in mind that is just focused on Australian consumers..... > > Cheers > > Rosemary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Avri Doria > Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:15 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document > > Hi, > > Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed constituency, I would not think that mattered. > > The CSG's IPC is a related to Commercial trademark concerns, while a new NCSG constituency, all things being equal, would be concerned with the Non Commercial aspects of trademarks. (not being a trademark expert i will not attempt to distinguish between the two, but it has become apparent even to a non lawyer like myself that the two categories of concerns are distinct) > > I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues that group wishes to deal with, but: > > - is it composed non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non commercial members > - does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN issues > - does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies > - is it international in scope > > > a. > > > > On 8 Nov 2010, at 19:01, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > >