Thanks for compiling the questions (see below).
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Amber Sterling
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi All,
I am compiling a list of questions posed regarding the NPOC charter and
will respond later today... the issue about whether or not the NPOC
would include "various national Chamber of Commerce or the International
Chamber of Commerce" is a non-starter. The proposed NPOC would be a
constituency within the NCSG and therefore must meet NCSG membership
requirements.
I'm glad the applicants for the proposed constituency recognizes the membership criteria for the NCSG.
However, if this is the case, then why would the proposed constituency even need to bother with using the confusing "not-for-profit" label? Wouldn't it be more clear to identify, as others have suggested, as a proposed "member or philanthropic service delivery" constituency?
Another question: If the "not-for-profit" membership requirement is maintained, given its various meanings across juridictions, how do the applicants propose to provide due diligence on membership applications?
Regards,
Brenden Kuerbis
Kind regards,
Amber
Subject: Re: Petition to form a new ICANN constituency
The way it is phrased now, yes, sure.
--c.a.
On 11/03/2010 10:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2010, at 08:43, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> The mission statement is phrased to involve *any* non-profit,
including business associations (non-profits which defend commercial
interests),
>
>
> Would this include the various national Chamber of Commerce or the
International Chamber of Commerce?
>
> Though the ICC is currently part of the BC, should we look forward to
them joining the NPOC?
>
> Thanks
>
> a.