Tamir, I agree with you. Let me clarify that I'm not advocating for third party involvement, just suggesting the internal membership admission group uses an evidence-based approach (with no need to go to a third party); just apply the criteria in such a way that a third party would objectively arrive at the same conclusion/ decision about membership... maybe too idealistic?.. but evaluators do use this approach... Cheers, Alain On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ** ** ** ** > > Hi Alain,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for the inform**at**ion, I will make sure to do my homework!**** > > ** ** > > I suppose my thinking is th**at** a.) viewing the number of emails this > list gener**at**es on a daily basis, dialogue does ot 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 rel**at**ing to membership > **** > > ** ** > > Hi Tamir,**** > > ** ** > > interesting!...Thanks for sharing.**** > > ** ** > > BTW, no apologies needed... **** > > ** ** > > I understand the appeal fe**at**ure...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 organiz**at**ion interested in ICANN can choose to join the > Constituency th**at** makes the most sense for th**at** organiz**at**ion... > and use the St**at**ement 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 th**at** 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 organiz* > *at**ion. Bill Clinton, like him or not, made th**at** 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 m**at**ters th**at** have already > been addressed (I am somewh**at** new to the list). From wh**at** I > understand, it is fairly common for groups such as this to assess > membership internally with an appeal process. Th**at** 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 th**at** my own legal clinic (CIPPIC) would > likely qualify for both the IP and the Bus constituencies, given a very > narrow interpret**at**ion, because, while we advoc**at**e in the public > interest, we are composed of copyright lawyers and do on occasion consult > with for-profit e-commerce organiz**at**ions 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 th**at** 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 rel**at**ing to membership**** > > **** > > Tamir,**** > > **** > > no objection **at** all... as an applied research grantmaking > practitioner in the past, as well as a retired evalu**at**ion consultant > for intern**at**ional 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 th**at** 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 **at**tempts **at**assessing ‘real non-commercial’ in general, or to specific line-drawing > with respect to one applic**at**ion (Olympic committee). If the objective > is to ensure true represent**at**ion of non-commercial interests, legal > (or .org) non-profit st**at**us 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’ rel**at**e to financial structuring, > not to ‘interests advanced’. There do not appear to be any requirements for > .org registr**at**ion. Given this, I think it is incumbent upon NCSG to > do some sort of assessment to ensure th**at** it remains represent**at**ive > 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 rel**at**ing 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 th**at** 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 represent**at**ive, Chasquinet Found**at**ion, www.chasquinet.org > interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger**** > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > 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 represent**at**ive, Chasquinet Found**at**ion, 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<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