Hi Lori Actually, I think this is very healthy and useful discussion. I don’t actually sense that there's antipathy at work here, but rather just a desire for clarity and transparency about what we’re all doing why and who we’re doing it with. That is in everyone’s interest. I think it’d be great if NPOC really focused in on operational concerns such as trademark protection for CSOs. That it would do so was the understanding we reached with Debbie and Amber at the Cartagena meeting in December 2010 when they agreed to change the name from the proposed Not-for-Profit Constituency (which was problematic since NCUC’s members are also nonprofit) to the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency, but subsequently things often got more blurry. Being really clear what the two constituencies are respectively about would inter alia make for less confusion among Fellows, SG newbies and outsiders when we do outreach events or otherwise have to explain the logic and operational mechanics of having two different CS groups under one roof. All of us who are closely involved have had to spent a lot of cycles trying to explain the topography and why, e.g., both constituencies were doing events in DC last month at the same time and inviting some of the same organizations to participate, which needless to say puzzled some we approached. If we could just clearly say NCUC is about x and NPOC is about y and we work together on z GNSO stuff in NCSG and everyone is fine with this, the narrative would be easier for outsiders to grasp and less prone to elicit perceptions of unattractive turf silliness and tension. Personally, I’d be very interested to learn more about the trademark defense challenges faced by CSOs. Is there an academic or other literature on this? Can you point me to some good materials outlining cases where CSOs lost out because the sorts of positions advocated by the Intellectual Property Constituency and NPOC had not been adequately translated into ICANN policy, or conversely where they didn’t lose because those positions did become policy? That’d be really helpful to me in more fully understanding your concerns. Finally, one thing I’ll admit I do feel some discomfort or at least uncertainty about is having meetings geared toward noncommercial users supported by commercial law firms working on intellectual property. Relatedly, if these events are actually Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation events that are merely hosted by NPOC, I’m not entirely clear why ICANN staff and financial support is being provided. GKPF is I believe an NPOC member organization (I’m guessing on the status since like the IPC you don’t appear to list your members on your website, which I thought was inconsistent with the NCSG charter but maybe not, don’t recall). If NCUC said it wanted to host a meeting for one of our member organizations and asked for the same kinds of support, I’m pretty sure we’d be told that ICANN staff that resources are only for ICANN entities, meaning in this case the constituency. But maybe we should test the hypothesis... Bottom line, if we are all clear and transparent in our activities I’m sure we can continue to cohabitate and collaborate without undue sturm und drang. The materials you’ve said you’ll provide will I’m sure help to assure that this remains the case. Thanks Bill On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Lori Schulman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Amr, > > The last webinar was recorded and this webinar will be recorded. I will find the link and post. I am all for pushback when needed and I am also for compromise. I hear so much antipathy on both sides. I am hoping that I can be one of those that helps build a bridge. Yes, I agree, up a long hill. > > Lori > > > Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 · [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > <image003.jpg> > > > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:01 PM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Feb 10: Singapore Pathfinder Webinar: What every Civil Society Organization should Know about its use of the Internet and Never Dared to Ask! - Part 2 > > Hi, > > Thanks for that Lori. However…, > > On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Lori Schulman <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > The idea is to create the right balance between fostering basic rights such as free speech and privacy while protecting the name, reputation and intellectual output of worthy organisations. > > This is precisely why I am interested to hear what this section of the webinar will include. You’ve (as have others before) certainly made a case for why protection of brands is important to the operations of NGOs. The thing is; the balance you refer to would never really be achieved if the arguments made by members of the IPC on Policy Development Process (PDP) working groups were to go unchecked without active pushback from those representing civil society interests in gTLD policy development. That is generally how some semblance of a balance is achieved. More often than not, it does feel like an uphill struggle. > > So please do forgive me if I am a bit sceptical on how this webinar will be presenting what the policy issues of importance to civil society are. To get a feel for how what you describe is presented to CS organisations within the context of the whole webinar, it’d be helpful to have a recording of it archived somewhere. So are there plans to have the webinar recorded? > > Thanks again. > > Amr > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.