Hi Alain,

 

Thank you for clarifying this for me. 

 

I apologize if I am merely rehashing matters that have already been
addressed (I am somewhat new to the list). From what I understand, it is
fairly common for groups such as this to assess membership internally with
an appeal process. That appears to be the practice for other constituency
groups: 

 

http://www.ipconstituency.org/join-the-ipc/ 

http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/ 

http://www.bizconst.org/responsibilities.htm 

http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm 

 

I think this is to some extent unavoidable. 

 

I note with some amusement that my own legal clinic (CIPPIC) would likely
qualify for both the IP and the Bus constituencies, given a very narrow
interpretation, because, while we advocate in the public interest, we are
composed of copyright lawyers and do on occasion consult with for-profit
e-commerce organizations where this will further the public interest.
However, were we to do so, I think it would pose serious challenges for a
multi-stakeholder model such as that ICANN aspires to.

 

Best regards,

Tamir

 

  _____  

From: Alain Berranger [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: November 14, 2011 2:36 PM
To: Tamir Israel
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about NCUC faq relating to membership

 

Tamir,

 

no objection at all... as an applied research grantmaking practitioner in
the past, as well as a retired evaluation consultant for international
development agencies, I have seen the benefits of assessments being made on
the basis of facts (or evidence if you prefer) which I define as objectively
verifiable by an independant and uninterested third party. I suggest that
norm be followed for admitting members into our constituencies and
stakeholders' group.

Alain

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi there,

 

I just wanted to clarify if you're objection is to attempts at assessing
'real non-commercial' in general, or to specific line-drawing with respect
to one application (Olympic committee). If the objective is to ensure true
representation of non-commercial interests, legal (or .org) non-profit
status is not enough, I think. It would be far too easy to game, as any
commercial interest can quite easily set up a non-profit wing. In fact, it's
fairly common practice for industry or business groups to set up non-profits
precisely for the purpose of advancing commercial interests. I can think of
many examples.

The legal criteria for 'non-profit' relate to financial structuring, not to
'interests advanced'. There do not appear to be any requirements for .org
registration. Given this, I think it is incumbent upon NCSG to do some sort
of assessment to ensure that it remains representative of non-commercial
interests.

 

Best,

Tamir

 

  _____  

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alain
Berranger
Sent: November 13, 2011 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about NCUC faq relating to membership

 

Meanwhile, I think we can only be taken seriously inside and outside ICANN
and do meaningful work, if we have hundred more if not thousands of NGO/NFP
members... so arguing about this NGO or this NFP being a "real
non-commercial" seems counterproductive to me!... You will surely agree with
me that academics support evidence-based decisions and the definition of an
NGO/NFP is not rocket science neither...

 





 

-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA

Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> 

Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca

NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger