Unless Debbie and Amber provide non-abstract examples of who the actual wording might illegitimately exclude, than i guess we should err on the side of flexibility towards "more non-commercial" than towards "may be part-commercial" ... . Debbie? Amber? Is this too much to ask? Please excuse my asking if you've done this already. Nicolas On 2/12/2011 8:16 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote: > I also find completely out of purpose to admit commercial > organizations in the NCSG. > > Yet, regarding the original document, are you referring to the comment > numbered as T6? > > I would also like to clarify the question on what are large > organizations based not only on their member count, but also on some > other criteria (closer to Avri's position). > > Best regards > > Nuno Garcia > > On 12 February 2011 12:09, Konstantinos Komaitis > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> I too find this proposal extremely alarming and I strongly object the idea >> of NCSG opening its membership to commercial organizations. As Robin says, >> we need to draw a line. >> The strength of ICANN is its multi-stakeholder model and the ability of >> all stakeholders to express their views and concerns. Each stakeholder >> group represents specific interests and NCSG is the place for civil >> society, human right groups and advocates of civil liberties. It does not >> make sense for commercial organizations to be part of NCSG especially >> since there are other places within the ICANN structure where they can air >> their concerns. >> I think we need to set some boundaries. The same way we respect commercial >> interests, let's show some respect for non-commercial ones. >> >> KK >> >> >> On 12/02/2011 02:15, "Dan Krimm"<[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Any org merely structured, itself, as an NPO that nevertheless has a >>> formally stated mission in its own articles of incorporation to serve the >>> interests of a for-profit/commercial "secondary" constituency does not >>> serve the interests of a non-commercial constituency. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> At 5:53 PM -0800 2/11/11, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> I strongly object to Debbie and Amber's request that NCSG open up its >>>> membership to commercial trade associations. >>>> >>>> NCSG is the *only* place at ICANN that is supposed to be free from >>>> commercial influence so other important goals can be pursued. All of the >>>> other 5 constituencies in the GNSO are commercial in nature. And many in >>>> At-Large are commercially oriented, as "noncommercial" is not part of its >>>> mission. But NCSG is the only place that is reserved specifically for >>>> non-commercial interests and it is important to keep this space free from >>>> commercial concerns, which permeate in every other nook and cranny of >>>> ICANN. ICANN's model was designed to allow a specific space for only >>>> noncommercial interests to be promoted as a way of advancing the health >>>> and development of the Internet. Human rights can never depend upon >>>> commercial interests alone to succeed, as one example of "other" goals >>>> besides commercial ones ICANN might want to consider. Without a barrier >>>> of some kind between the two worlds, noncommercial interests will be >>>> over-run by the well-financed commercial interests at ICANN. Of course >>>> commercial interests have a place in policy development, but ICANN must >>>> leave a single solitary space that cannot be over-run by commercial >>>> interests if it wants to claim it represents "the global public >>>> interest". >>>> >>>> If we opened up NCSG to commercial trade organizations, groups like the >>>> Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or the International >>>> Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) would join. I bet Big >>>> Pharma trade associations would be among the first to sign-up to NCSG >>>> (since their interests are so woefully under-represented at ICANN between >>>> the IPC and the BC). >>>> >>>> No, I think we have to draw a line at some point -- and it is with >>>> commercial trade associations. They don't belong in NCSG. They have a >>>> legitimate place in policy development, but it isn't going to be in the >>>> non-commercials' name. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:NCSG Charter-2011-02#21F217.doc >>>> (WDBN/«IC») (0021F217) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the edit pass. >>>>> >>>>> On 'civility' I expect we can come to any agreement. As you said, it >>>>> has such a broad meaning. >>>>> >>>>> I took a quick look at the other comments, and some of your recommended >>>>> changes seem like they would be substantive changes to the charter that >>>>> was approved by a vote in the NCSG. I have been very careful to not >>>>> make >>>>> substantive changes during this process. I will read it more carefully >>>>> this weekend. I would think that I would need to have consensus in the >>>>> EC for making any substantive changes on behalf of the NCSG. I would >>>>> like to see where the discussion goes on your proposals. >>>>> >>>>> But of course I will forward them to the SIC and Staff, with any >>>>> comments that are generated on these lists. And I would expect you to >>>>> offer them as a comments during the comment period. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> a. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 14:31, Amber Sterling wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Debbie and I reviewed the proposed NCSG charter together and our >>>>>> edits/comments are attached. Please let me know if you have any >>>>>> questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Amber >>>>>> >>>>>> Amber Sterling >>>>>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist >>>>>> Association of American Medical Colleges >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:44 PM >>>>>> To: NCSG EC; NCSG Policy Committee >>>>>> Subject: [ncsg-ec] my review of the staff's edit to our SG charter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a summary of my comments. I intend to send this to Sam >>>>>> Monday >>>>>> morning. >>>>>> >>>>>> In some cases these comments may not make sense without Sam's comment >>>>>> in >>>>>> the text. I guess sometimes they might not makes sense in any case. >>>>>> >>>>>> These comments can also be found in the document itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments: >>>>>> >>>>>> Re 1.2.2 (c) Inclusion of civility >>>>>> >>>>>> If necessary I am sure we will include the word 'civility'. Many of >>>>>> the >>>>>> NCSG members, especially those in NCUC, see this particular >>>>>> requirement >>>>>> for civility as being problematic in that it requires a value judgment >>>>>> close to political correctness in order to make a judgment of what is >>>>>> civil and what is not. Especially in a multi-cultural organization >>>>>> often one cultures directness is another cultures incivility. We also >>>>>> believe that this criteria has been used improperly by the Ombudsman >>>>>> and >>>>>> others in ICANN's past to limit freedom of expression. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Re 2.2.3 - definition of large and small organization >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally I prefer the original NCSG definition and recommend that >>>>>> the >>>>>> Constituency process includes this instead. the problem with the >>>>>> criterion here is that certain organization will be excluded from >>>>>> membership based on not being large enough to be small. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> a. Organizations that have more than 50 employees, or are membership >>>>>> organizations with more than 500 individual members, shall be >>>>>> classified >>>>>> as "large organizations". >>>>>> >>>>>> b. Organizations that are composed of 10 or more organizational >>>>>> members >>>>>> that qualify as "large" under criterion (a.) above shall be classified >>>>>> as "large organizations". >>>>>> >>>>>> c. Organizations that do not qualify as large organizations shall be >>>>>> classified as "small organizations". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.2.8 Inactive Membership >>>>>> >>>>>> While it is reasonable to include a sentence to indicate that members >>>>>> can resign, i don't think we need to have names on the inactive list >>>>>> times out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, at this point we do not have dues. We are considering the >>>>>> introduction of voluntary contributions i the future, but at this >>>>>> point >>>>>> membership in the NCSG is like membership in ISOC, no payment >>>>>> necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.2.10 Sam had a question on outreach and coordination between >>>>>> constituency Outreach and SG outreach. recommended adding: >>>>>> >>>>>> Membership outreach will be coordinated with Constituency outreach >>>>>> efforts and any outreach efforts established by the GNSO or ICANN. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.4.2.1 Requirements for appeal and the question of whether there >>>>>> should >>>>>> be weighted notion of bringing the case for consideration. >>>>>> >>>>>> We thought about this and decided that while the voting threshold >>>>>> includes the proportionality, the raising of the issue did not need >>>>>> to. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.4.3 Chair election - changed the line to read: >>>>>> >>>>>> A Chair can serve, at maximum, 2 full one year terms[SE1] >>>>>> consecutively. >>>>>> There must be at least one intervening term before a member can be >>>>>> elected again as chair;[AD2] >>>>>> >>>>>> [SE1]For consideration: Has there been discussion about when the >>>>>> terms >>>>>> would begin/end? That could be specified in here, but not required. >>>>>> >>>>>> [AD2]not really. Basically that gets defined on an election by >>>>>> election basis. I was criticized once for making the charter too long >>>>>> by getting too much into detail. This sort of thing does not seem to >>>>>> really need codification, especially since creating a generic rule can >>>>>> get confusing. On the other hand, I think there was an ambiguity >>>>>> about >>>>>> whether a chair could serve again in the future, so I added >>>>>> clarification. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone have something else to add? >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming the constituency process is approved, I think the changes Sam >>>>>> made were mostly ok. None of my comments is really big, except for >>>>>> perhaps the one about big and small organizations that create an empty >>>>>> spot for many of our small organization that are not big enough to be >>>>>> small under the staff' definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> a. >>>>>> >>>>>> <NCSG Charter-2011-02-11_Amber-Debbie.doc> >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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]