+ 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