On 10/11/2012 12:33 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Shouldn't the ISP constituency be involved in this discussion? > > From the application documents, looks like they are trying to create > an association, rather than being an already established group. > > Perhaps as a member of NPOC rather than a new constituency? Is NPOC an organization sheltering for-profits? Norbert Klein > > Adam > > > > On Thursday, October 11, 2012, Marc Perkel wrote: > > I agree - Non-Commercial means non-commercial. So the for profit > can go somewhere else. > > On 10/10/2012 8:42 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > > ICANN's Silo model indeed produces a problem for this group. I > think what > they really need to do is split themselves for the purposes of > ICANN formal > structures into two groups: "non-profit Public Internet > Access" and > "Cyber-cafes and other commercial shared computer access > providers", apply > for NCSG/CSG group membership but agree amongst themselves > that they will > coordinate strongly between them on promoting the clear common > interests such > a group has. > > I'm afraid I could not support the inclusion of for-profit > access providers > in an NCSG constituency as it violates the non-commercial > principle of SG > membership. >