Alain, this attack was avoidable and frankly, a bit worrying. Could you care to explain what is your problem of the U. of Syracuse? (where is the U. of Syracuse?). This is clear an "ad hominem" argument - and thus, on my perspective, not valid at all. Best, Nuno Garcia On 15 November 2011 22:48, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Sir, > > Frankly your tone is unacceptable - at any time from anyone - but coming > from an U. of Syracuse senior academic, I'm not impressed! Annoyed or not > however, I have tried to keep my comments substantive and based on facts; > > On a substantive basis, two points as it seems the "facts" on which the > decision was made are wrong: i) the hundred of millions of network > television licensing revenues do not go to OCs but to the games' organizing > committee - or am I wrong here and need to be corrected - please do so if > that is the case and we will all learn about this? ii) When I visit the > USOC website, I have to dig deep to find a modest sponsorship reference to > Coca Cola... so where are all the corporate ads you are referring to? and > if they were more, where would the problem be? > > It seems clear to me, referring back to Avri's comments, and to Kelly's > email exchange with Avri, and scanning the USOC website, that the principal > activity of USOC is to support athletes and the cost of their > participation. That is the criteria for a non-commercial classification. On > the issue of brand protection, I'm unsure where the distinction lie between > commercial and non-commercial... I see brands (and logos) being protected > by all segments of society. > > I do not think corporate sponsorships/donations, whatever the size by the > way, make an entity commercial per se. If one used that criteria, your own > university (or mine) would be deemed commercial, just because it accepted > $30 million from JP Morgan Chase or, in the case of Schulich School of > Business (where I am an Executive-in-residence) receiving tens of millions > from the Schulich family. I do not think it is the case for neither > institutions. > > I do hope that the tone of exchange will return to normalcy. > > AB > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Alain**** >> >> Nothing in this message alters the basic facts upon which the decision >> was based, namely the hundreds of millions of dollars in network television >> licensing deals and corporate advertisements on the USOC website, and the >> extent to which USOC's perspectives on brand protection are fundamentally >> in alignment with those of the CSG. No one is going to change their minds. >> If you want to keep harping on it, you can, but frankly you are just >> annoying people. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> --MM**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf >> Of *Alain Berranger >> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2011 2:27 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from >> NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks Kelly for putting evidence of USOC's not-for-profit status >> squarely on the table. It is now hoped that the NCSG-Executive Committee >> opponents to USOC's membership will change their minds and rally to the >> NPOC-Executive Committee's recommendation. Kudos to Avri for her mature and >> transparent attitude!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I sincerely hope future discussions about pending and new NPOC members >> will be based solely on evidence, ie. facts verifiable by an independant >> and uninterested third party. Let it be clear, once again, that the NPOC >> Constituency will accept only non-commercial members, thus facilitating the >> work of the NCSG-Executive Committee on admission to the Stakeholders' >> Group.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best, Alain**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kelly Maser <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote:**** >> >> Thank you to Alain for speaking up to discuss why the U.S. Olympic >> Committee is truly a non-profit entity. The USOC and its predecessor >> organizations have been responsible for overseeing amateur sports in this >> country, not just at the elite level but also encouraging sports, healthy >> lifestyles, competition and fair play at the grassroots levels as well. >> The USOC has many member organizations, some of which are community-based >> organizations such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the >> Girl Scouts, etc. But the primary members are the National Governing >> Bodies ("NGBs") for the individual sports (*e.g., *USA Track & Field, >> USA Swimming, U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association, U.S. Figure Skating, U.S. >> Tennis Association). The majority of the USOC's budget goes to support >> athletes, either through direct grants or through funding the NGBs. The >> USOC also provides support to the NGBs (and their athletes) in terms of >> governance support, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports psychology >> and the like. The USOC also operates three U.S. Olympic Training Centers >> where thousands of athletes train each year. Here are a few statistics for >> you: **** >> >> **** >> >> For example, from 2002-2010, these fees were used to assist the USOC >> in: **** >> >> (a) annually hosting approximately 25,000 athletes, coaches, >> officials and program staff for the National Governing Bodies ("NGBs") for >> the individual Olympic sports at its three Olympic training centers >> (located in Chula Vista, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado and Lake >> Placid, New York) and at its U.S. Olympic Education Center in Marquette, >> Michigan, at a cost of $360 million over that >> period; **** >> >> (b) providing support to and sending elite U.S. athletes and >> teams to national and international competitions, most notably the Olympic >> Games, at a cost of $80 million; **** >> >> (c) working with local communities and 19 different NGBs on >> behalf of the Community Olympic Development Programs in Atlanta, Georgia; >> Chicago, Illinois; Springfield, Missouri; Moorestown, New Jersey; San >> Antonio, Texas; Verona, Wisconsin; and Park City and Kearns, Utah; >> **** >> >> (d) directing over $160 million in grants and services to >> athletes, including monetary stipends, health services and benefits, >> educational grants, and more;**** >> >> (e) providing additional support to 47 different National >> Governing Bodies in the form of NGB Programs and Services including sport >> performance, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports science and >> organizational support, at a cost of $235 million; and**** >> >> (f) funding the USOC's many other statutory functions.**** >> >> Please let me know if there are other questions that I could help answer. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Sincerely,**** >> >> Kelly**** >> >> * ***** >> >> *Kelly Maser **| Associate General Counsel|** **United States Olympic >> Committee** **| **Office**: 719.866.4115 |** **Cell**: 719.330.0266 |** >> **Fax**: 719.866.4839 | [log in to unmask] | **www.teamusa.org***** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On >> Behalf Of *Alain Berranger >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 3:09 PM >> *To:* Avri Doria >> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC >> Teleconference on 8 November 2011**** >> >> **** >> >> Thks Avri,**** >> >> **** >> >> I have no appetite for minority appeal that I cannot hope to win under >> current membership mindset, sense of entitlement, grand-fathering, numbers >> and distribution... but NPOC colleagues may decide differently.**** >> >> **** >> >> I think we need in general to follow evidence-based membership criteria >> and follow the same criteria for all. So my 4 arguments remain as far as I >> am concerned and can be verified by evidence (facts) not opinion, hearsay, >> bias, etc...**** >> >> **** >> >> Different strokes for different folks? For instance, how can we have >> NCUC/NCSG individual members working for a law firm or a telecom company? >> but we do. The NPOC membership is clear: all are not-for-profit and only >> play one side of the street. **** >> >> **** >> >> To the risk of repeating myself, national olympic committees are >> not-for-profits working year in and year out for athletes and not to be >> confused with the games organizing committees which are for profit (or at >> least not for loss) once in a blue moon when the country is awarded the >> games...**** >> >> **** >> >> For instance re London 2012: one needs to distingush between the games >> organizers - http://www.london2012.*com*/ <http://www.london2012.com/> which >> is for profit and get sponsors to support the 2012 games and the UK Olympic >> committee which every year supports UK athletes and get sponsors to support >> athletes- http://www.olympics.*org*.uk/ <http://www.olympics.org.uk/> >> >> Alain**** >> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**** >> >> Hi, >> >> Assuming there are 14 members who agree with your position, the charter >> has provision for an appeal process that includes the possibility of taking >> it to a full membership vote if the difference of opinion cannot be >> resolved. >> >> > 1. Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a full >> vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which an appeal can >> be initiated: >> > >> > · If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and >> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive Committee >> will first take the appeal under consideration. >> > >> > · If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those >> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision, the NCSG-EC >> and those making the appeal should attempt to negotiate a mutually >> agreeable solution. >> > >> > · If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a >> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days, then an NCSG >> vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable. >> > >> > · For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG >> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as defined in >> section 4.0. >> >> >> Some comments below.**** >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2011, at 15:16, Alain Berranger wrote: >> >> > Dear Colleagues, >> > >> > I want to state I disagree with the decision to exclude the USOC. For 4 >> reasons: >> > >> > 1) Its vision: to enable America's athletes to realize their Olympic >> and Paralympic dreams.**** >> >> That is its vision, but it is debatable that is main purpose is to >> administer commercial licensing agreement. Or at least this seems to be >> the resumption of those who voted against their membership. >> >> The charter indicates: >> "3. Is engaged in online activities that are primarily noncommercial, >> including, e.g., advocacy, educational, religious, human rights, >> charitable, scientific and artistic, and" >> >> So the question is, what are its primary activities, granting licenses or >> supporting athletes. I have certainly heard arguments on both sides of >> this issue, and personally think it is a toss up. For example, it is well >> known that most olympians have to find their own funding in the US. This >> varies by country, but in the US, the US Olympic Committee does not support >> athletes as far as I have been able to discover. So what do they do beyond >> sanction events and licensing?**** >> >> >> >> > 2) its mission: To support U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes in >> achieving sustained competitive excellence and preserve the Olympic ideals, >> and thereby inspire all Americans. >> > >> > 3) It is a not-for-profit with IRS exemption under 501 c 3**** >> >> As the charter indicates, being not-for-profit is not sufficient. For >> example the Chamber of Commerce in not-for-profit and yet obviously not a >> non-commercial entity. Specifically: >> >> "4. In the case of a membership-based organization, the organization >> should not only be noncommercial itself, but should have a primarily >> noncommercial focus, and the membership should also be primarily composed >> of noncommercial members. (E.g., a chamber of commerce, though it may be a >> noncommercial organization itself, and might even have some noncommercial >> members, is primarily composed of commercial organizations and has a >> commercial focus and would not be eligible for membership.)" >> >> So the question becomes, who are the principles members? I do not know >> the answer to this. >> >> avri**** >> >> >> > >> > 4) fundraising is an activity of all not-for-profits, including >> sponsoring, and thus does not make a not-for-profit a commercial >> organization. I think you are confusing the USOC per se with the various >> olympic games hosting organizations set up for Lake Placid, Los Angeles >> games, etc... >> > >> > Alain >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> > The new NCSG Executive Committee held its first tele-conference on >> Tuesday and we made great progress, particularly with respect to >> establishing a process for handling NCSG membership applications and >> dealing with the NPOC applications that had come in since the election. So >> below are my notes from the EC meeting's discussion. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Robin >> > >> > NCSG-EC Teleconference - 8 Nov. 2011 >> > Transcript & mp3 recording: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meetings >> > Attendance: Michael Carson, Rafik Dammak, Robin Gross, Milton Mueller, >> Klaus Stoll >> > NCSG-EC Mtg Discussion Agenda: >> > >> > - Review of NCSG membership application procedures >> > >> > - Review of pending NCSG membership applications >> > >> > - Establishment of NCSG Financial Committee >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > MEETING NOTES: >> > >> > These 8 orgs were approved for NCSG membership: >> > ALSAC / St. Jude >> > Australian RedCross Society >> > Church of God in Christ >> > Goodwill Industries >> > International Baccalaureate Organization >> > The Association of NGOs, The Gambia (TANGO) >> > Water Environment Research Foundation >> > YMCA of The Gambia >> > >> > These 3 orgs were determined ineligible for NCSG membership: >> > 1. Kaswesha Community Resource Center >> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least >> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter Section >> 2.2.1). >> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain >> name. >> > >> > 2. Civil Society Movement Against Tuberculosis in Sierre Leone >> (CISMAT-SL) >> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least >> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter Section >> 2.2.1). >> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain >> name. >> > >> > 3. US Olympic Committee: >> > Reason provided for non-approval: USOC is substantially a major sports >> licensing business and NCSG is devoted to the protection of noncommercial >> interests. >> > They were invited to join ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency as >> the more appropriate place to protect their interests. >> > >> > These 7 orgs are undergoing further evaluation: >> > Child Protection Alliance >> > Information Technology Association of the Gambia >> > National Coalition for the Homeless >> > National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry >> > Pilots N Paws >> > Tranquil Space Foundation >> > Young Life >> > >> > >> > ** Attached to this email is a flow chart to explain the agreed process >> for handling NCSG Membership Applications going forward. >> > >> > A few notes on the procedures for handling NCSG Membership Applications: >> > >> > Completed NCSG Membership applications should be submitted by the >> Applicant to the email address [log in to unmask] for consideration >> by the entire NCSG Executive Committee. >> > >> > NCSG-NCUC Membership application forms are available on the NCSG wiki >> (for individuals and for organizations). >> > >> > Members of the NCSG-EC have 2 weeks to conduct the required due >> diligence on the applications (more flexible if a holiday). >> > >> > Decisions to approve membership applications require the full consensus >> of the voting members of the NCSG Executive Committee (NCSG Charter 2.4.2). >> > >> > Verification of a named official representative's authority to >> represent an organizational applicant should be independently verified by >> the EC (NSCG Charter 2.2.4.1). >> > >> > Aggregate voting / representation is not permitted for organizations. >> Each organization must be represented by a different person. No single >> person (or group of persons, i.e., a law firm) can represent two or more >> organizations in NCSG at the same time. This policy discourages attempts >> to game the system through aggregating membership votes. >> > >> > Organizations with a nonprofit legal structure are nonetheless >> ineligible for membership in NCSG if they are substantially a commercial or >> business activity and their interests are more appropriately represented in >> one of the commercial stakeholder groups (NCSG Charter 2.2.2). >> > >> > An organization's official representative to NCSG cannot be a GNSO >> Council Representative for the Intellectual Property Constituency (or other >> officer or member of the IPC or CSG). Outside trademark lawyers are >> discouraged as the official representative for an org to NCSG since NCSG is >> devoted to protecting noncommercial interests. >> > >> > ON A SEPARATE ISSUE: >> > The EC is in the process of establishing a NCSG Financial Committee (as >> per NCSG Charter 2.1. & 2.6.) and is looking for volunteers from among the >> NCSG membership - people with fundraising expertise and time to devote to >> NCSG fundraising activities and ICANN resource allocations. So please let >> an EC member know if you'd like to be considered for membership on the NCSG >> Financial Committee. Thank you! >> > -------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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<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**** >> >> **** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> 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**** >> >> ** ** >> > > > > -- > 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 > >