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] >>> >>> >>> >> >