<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121009_multi_stakeholderism_revisited_icann_we_can_do_better/> More inclusive commercial group would be helpful. Adam On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Norbert Klein <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 > > In the very early stages of Internet access in Cambodia - operated by us, an > NGO - we even provided for some time a public access point (no coffee!), non > commercial, to introduce what this whole thing meant, and to offer initial > services. > > But we promoted the idea which was then taken up by some people, first in > the capital city, then in some provincial towns: to create Internet Cafes - > and they became an income and employment basis, commercially. > > I agree with Milton that Cybercafes are important entry points to Internet > access for many. But surely many have to struggle to develop and maintain > their business models. If bigger businesses (in ICANN/GNSO) could cooperate > closely with smaller businesses (that is what many Cybercafes are) that > would be an important step into the right direction, I think, to strengthen > their commercial interests. To put them into a not-for-profit category would > mean to lead them to fail in their commercial business. > > > Norbert Klein > Open Institute > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > > > > On 10/12/2012 5:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Amr: > > The issue here is not whether CCAOI, the organization itself, is a > nonprofit. > > The point is that cybercafés, which they purport to represent, are basically > businesses. > > I love cybercafé business, and consider them to be on the front lines of > developing internet access in developing and some urban and rural areas – > but they are businesses. Cybercafes are internet service providers. > > > > I am sure we would have common ground with them on a number of policy > issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that they belong in the CSG. > > > > Indeed, it would be fantastic if they would join the Commercial Stakeholders > Group, or even the ISP constituency (which is what they really are), because > that part of the GNSO really needs to be broadened. > > > > There is a problem with the business and board people generally considering > NCSG to be a “dumping ground” for people who aren’t allowed to be > represented anywhere else. It is completely unfair for the CSG to lock > people like this out simply because they won’t allow a new constituency to > dilute their votes. It would be all too convenient for the business > interests to push all the diversity into the NCSG and refuse to allow it > themselves. > > > > The solution to this is not to dilute and undermine NCSG by adding a bunch > of ISP businesses and calling them “noncommercial,” but to broaden the CSG. > Please help us in that agenda. > > > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amr > Elsadr > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:20 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Application For New GNSO Constituency in The > NCSG -- PIA-CC > > > > I'm not sure I agree with labeling the CCAOI as a for-profit entity. As per > their application documents, they describe themselves as: > > > > "Though we, CCAOI, are an association, the approach followed by us is that > of an NGO. Right from our membership to the services we provide, all are > free of charge. In fact, we play a far more responsible role for building > the cybercafé ecosystem and are also responsible for the users, majority of > who fall in the age group of 15-35 years as well as the VAS providers. India > has over 80 million internet (email) users today, out of which nearly 40% > access internet through cybercafés. We also have a forum for the users and > our ultimate objective is empowerment of the citizens through Digitization." > > > > However, I am not very convinced with their application, particularly in > Section 3.0: Uniqueness and Representational Focus. It seems to me that they > should have sought membership in an already existing constituency within the > NCSG rather than creating a new one. IMHO, wether or not they should even be > granted membership is still debatable. > > > > I am curious and would like to learn more about the nature of the > relationship between the CCAOI and the Department of Information Technology > of the Govt. of India, which is listed as one of its national affiliates on > the CCAIO website. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but it sounds very > similar to the IT clubs in youth centers in Egypt in terms of services and > objectives. The IT clubs are a government program funded and operated by the > Egyptian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology that take > place at youth centers (amongst other facilities), which officially belong > to an NGO, however are also more-or-less financially dependent on funding > and oversight by the government. The NCSG charter frankly excludes > governmental organizations and departments from being members, but perhaps > does not address this sort of scenario as clearly as it should. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:23 AM, 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. > > > > > >