Hi all. I think we had agreed on that not-for-profit is different of non-commercial. I see no reason why NPOC could not support a Chamber of Commerce application - this clearly falls within the scope of "non-profit" organization. And the same to workers unions, large cooperative organizations, foundations, political parties and so on. I recall that some private foundations have larger budgets than some countries. And with this thought I go and try to find more info on NPOC because now I am a bit worried... Best, Nuno Garcia On 15 November 2011 22:55, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Greetings Nicolas, > > I generally buy the Chambers of Commerce arguments... NPOC is not > submitting any Chamber of Commerce membership application... for the USOC > case please refer to the stream of emails and we can exchange further, if > you wish. > > Generally I think Avri's criteria of assessing what are the main > activities of an organization applying for membership is excellent. So in > reference to the London games, NPOC would support an application by the UK > Olympic Committee but not by the London olympic games organizing committee > (See the distinction in Kelly's email response to Avri). > > Best > > Alain > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> catching up on a lot of discussion folks. This debate may be more >> advance now than I am aware of. >> >> Alain, >> >> Don't make this about "being" or "not being" a *non-profit*. It is about >> being or not being *non-commercial*. Non-profit and non-commercial are >> objectivaly distinctive. one of the distinction we chose to make was about >> the commercial status of the org members themselves, which is a very >> objective way to discriminate. >> >> Tell me straight please, would you have wanted to draft rules that would >> have enabled Chambers of Commerce to apply for and receive NCSG membership? >> This is a trust-building or trust-breaking question as far as i'm concern. >> And a fundamental one at that. >> >> Also, why isn't the org in question interested in joining the CSG? >> >> Nicolas >> >> >> On 14/11/2011 2:27 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: >> >> 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 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 7824<%2B1%20514%20704%207824> >>> 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 > >