+1 Hakikur At 09:20 18-11-2012, William Drake wrote: >+ 1 > >Bill > >On Nov 17, 2012, at 20:35, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Thanks Mary, > > I'd support this individually, and like the approach of a joint > > NCUC/NPOC comment (or later endorsement, depending on timing). > > > > --Wendy > > > > On 11/17/2012 11:53 AM, 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-commercial in their > >>>> focus. The fact that individual cybercafes within the wider CCAOI > >>>> organization may not charge fees to their users does not by itself make > >>>> either these cybercafes or the CCAOI > itself a non-commercial organization. > >>>> Rather, we note from its application that its members include also > >>>> "e-commerce service providers", "Internet solution providers" and > >>>> entrepreneurs, and its plans include the > use of a mobile payment platform > >>>> to alleviate the problem of low credit card usage and cash safety. > >>>> > >>>> We therefore believe that the proper place within the current GNSO > >>>> framework for CCAOI is the CSG. The fact > that the CSG's rigid constituency > >>>> structures may mean that CCAOI could potentially belong to either the > >>>> Internet Service Providers (ISP) > constituency or the Business Constituency > >>>> (BC), or that either of these groups may need to modify its charter to > >>>> allow a commercial organization of CCAOI's nature to apply, is not NCSG' > >>>> concern or issue. Similarly, if the GNSO's > own structure requires change in > >>>> order to accommodate a diverse organization such as CCAOI, it is not a > >>>> solution to just put them in the NCSG simply because we are the most > >>>> flexible and open GNSO stakeholder group. These limitations are problems > >>>> that are neither the fault of CCAOI or NCSG, and should if necessary be > >>>> addressed by the GNSO as a whole and perhaps also the ICANN Board's own > >>>> Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), > who had worked with the fledgling > >>>> NCSG to develop a charter that reflected non-commercial values and > >>>> interests. > >>>> > >>>> Should this not be feasible, NCSG believes that those members and > >>>> elements of CCAOI that are purely non-commercial could individually join > >>>> NCSG. As a representative organization > that has clearly commercial sources > >>>> of funding and for-profit members, however, CCAOI as it is currently > >>>> constituted clearly does not belong within NCSG. > >>>> > >>>> Respectfully submitted, > >>>> > >>>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mary W S Wong > >>>> Professor of Law > >>>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > >>>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs > >>>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > >>>> Two White Street > >>>> Concord, NH 03301 > >>>> USA > >>>> Email: [log in to unmask] > >>>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > >>>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > >>>> Selected writings available on the Social > Science Research Network (SSRN) > >>>> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > >>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > >>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > >>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >>> Skype: alain.berranger > >>> > >>> > >>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ > >>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire > >>> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le > >>> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la > personne responsable de le remettre au > >>> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement > >>> interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le > >>> reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le > destinataire ne peut être joint ou > >>> si ce document vous a été communiqué par > erreur, veuillez nous en informer > >>> sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et > toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de > >>> votre coopération. > >>> > >>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > >>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use > >>> of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone > >>> other than the addressee, his or her > employee or the person responsible for > >>> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, > >>> distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or > >>> in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this > >>> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and > >>> destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > -- > > Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 617.863.0613 > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > > Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project > > http://wendy.seltzer.org/ > > https://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > https://www.torproject.org/ > > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/