Hi Alain,

 

Thanks for the information, I will make sure to do my homework!

 

I suppose my thinking is that a.) viewing the number of emails this list generates on a daily basis, dialogue does not seem to have broken down (many of these appear to be from you/responses to concerns raised by you) and b.) imposing external oversight over membership decisions of a stakeholder group such as this raises, in my eyes, more issues than it resolves.

 

 

Best regards,

Tamir

From: Alain Berranger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: November 14, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Tamir Israel
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about NCUC faq relating to membership

 

Hi Tamir,

 

interesting!...Thanks for sharing.

 

BTW, no apologies needed... 

 

I understand the appeal feature...right now the balance of power within NCSG would make it ineffective. Appealing or using ombdusman should be a last resort when dialogue has broken down. Much more deesirable to look at the facts, most often then, the decision becomes obvious.

 

I think an organization interested in ICANN can choose to join the Constituency that makes the most sense for that organization... and use the Statement of Interest (SOI) to be transparent about secondary interests or apparent conflicts of interest... Where I have a concern is when those "other" interests are not declared at all... and/or that SOIs are not available... It always raise the issue if this is as a result of neglect or by design... neither options are much desirable!

 

Indeed, all this is needed to keep ICANN a true multi-stakeholder organization. Bill Clinton, like him or not, made that very clear at his San Francisco address during ICANN 40. His text should be required reading for all new comers to ICANN and a good refresher for all.

 

Cheers, Alain

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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

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

 



 

--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA

Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca

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