Yes Maria, but it would need support from other NPOC members besides myself. Alain
On Saturday, November 17, 2012, Maria Farrell wrote:
Does it make sense, then, to submit the piece as a joint ncuc/npoc comment, and not an ncsg one?
I'd support that, as an ncuc member.On 17 November 2012 15:39, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Mary,Thanks a lot for an excellent statement.On a personal basis, I agree with much of the spirit of your proposed comment and take the opportunity to run it by NPOC-voice to solicit an NPOC wide view. However, as Avri points out, the NCSG-EC has to decide on a recommendation to the Board as per the timeline Robin indicated. So, it seems inappropriate for NCSG-EC to make a public comment at this early stage such as the one you suggest or any other one for that matter, as it would essentially have the effect of making a decision regarding the application during the public comment period.There are 2 points I would like to raise:1) telecentres for social purposes, usually located in schools, clinics, community centers, remote villages, etc... - for instance see http://www.telecentre.org/ for a look inside the Telecentre movement - are non-commercial public access Internet points (PIAPs) while cybercafés are essentially commercial, even if located in very poor and under serviced areas, because they are mostly entrepreneurial in their organization, with a livelihood or profit making purpose. The former could be housed in NCSG (as Members) while the latter could be welcomed into CSG.2) we should distinguish between the proponent and it's adequacy to be the leader of the creation of a new constituency and the need for a new constituency. If it is confirmed that there is a need for some kind of a new constituency, then NCSG-EC has to also decide on it's recommendation regarding if the proponent is likely to adequately lead the creation of that new constituency.I hope this helps! Alain
On Saturday, November 17, 2012, wrote:Hello everyone,
Since today is the last day for public comment on the proposed new cybercafe constituency and nothing has been sent in, I took the liberty of composing something brief that I hope members can approve. I've done so as many members have expressed firm opinions about this issue, and it is important that NCSG sends in a comment, especially since the group is applying to join NCSG.
The proposed comment follow; if there is no objection by the end of the day, I propose to file it on behalf of NCSG. Thanks everyone!
"The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is pleased to see that there is increased interest from developing regions in ICANN participation. Having long been the most-diverse (geographically and ethnically) stakeholder group within not just the GNSO but ICANN as well, we have always made outreach, accessibility and engagement part of our mission and have as a result welcomed numerous new individual and organizational members from across the globe into our membership, including through the GNSO's newest constituency, the Not for Profit Operational Concerns (NPOC) constituency.
There is consensus in the NCSG - from both NPOC and Non-Commerciaul Users Constituency (NCUC) members - that the new CCAOI application for constituency status belongs not in the NCSG but in the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG). We have carefully reviewed all the documents and information provided in the CCAOI's application, and believe that it is a commercial organization whose operations do not fit within NCSG's formal charter or objectives.
The CCAOI's stated reason for applying to join NCSG is that it is a non-profit organization which among its activities promotes public interest goals of education and access. While non-profit organizations are members of NCSG's NPOC constituency, NPOC members must first and continue to be NCSG members as well, i.e., remain resolutely non-co