<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Avri<BR>
<BR>
Why "international in scope" ?<BR>
<BR>
I have an organisation in mind that is just focused on Australian consumers.....<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
<BR>
Rosemary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Avri Doria<BR>
Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:15 AM<BR>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
<BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed constituency, I would not think that mattered.<BR>
<BR>
The CSG's IPC is a related to Commercial trademark concerns, while a new NCSG constituency, all things being equal, would be concerned with the Non Commercial aspects of trademarks. (not being a trademark expert i will not attempt to distinguish between the two, but it has become apparent even to a non lawyer like myself that the two categories of concerns are distinct)<BR>
<BR>
I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues that group wishes to deal with, but:<BR>
<BR>
- is it composed non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non commercial members<BR>
- does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN issues<BR>
- does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies<BR>
- is it international in scope<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 8 Nov 2010, at 19:01, Dan Krimm wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> This might be a compelling argument for me if in fact the IPC did not<BR>
> exist as a separate constituency itself.<BR>
><BR>
> But the IPC's very existence seems to speak of an explicit litmus test<BR>
> that is unique in the GNSO. In short, this litmus test is special, unlike<BR>
> any other litmus tests, because it has its own formal constituency in GNSO<BR>
> already.<BR>
><BR>
> Given this precedent in the GNSO, I would think it bears careful<BR>
> consideration.<BR>
><BR>
> Dan<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and<BR>
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On Mon, November 8, 2010 3:47 pm, Avri Doria wrote:<BR>
>> Hi,<BR>
>><BR>
>> I tend to think that agencies like the Red Cross, which are essential<BR>
>> public service organizations and/or charities do belong in the NCSG since<BR>
>> their primary purpose is a non commercial purpose - helping people without<BR>
>> thought for profit.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I think the fact that they have trademark concerns that may conflict with<BR>
>> the other trademark concerns in the NCSG is beside the point, that is part<BR>
>> of NCSG being a broad tent for all non profit/ non commercial<BR>
>> organizations, be they advocacy, service, charity, education ...<BR>
>><BR>
>> What is most important to me, and I thought to the NCSG, is that the main<BR>
>> purpose of the organization and its members, if it is an aggregate, be<BR>
>> something other then profit or commercial intersts. This is something<BR>
>> which I think is the case with the 80+ non profit organizations that came<BR>
>> into the NCSG via their history as NCUC members. And that include the<BR>
>> Red Cross, whether International or National.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I do not think we need litmus test on the issues a constituency or its<BR>
>> members believe in as long as the driving concern is a non profit and non<BR>
>> commercial concern.<BR>
>><BR>
>> a.<BR>
>><BR>
>> On 8 Nov 2010, at 18:22, Kimberley Heitman wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>> Actually, Red Cross's trademarks are protected by the Geneva Convention<BR>
>>> 1864 - so GAC can look after it. Even in the US, misuse of the emblem is<BR>
>>> a criminal offence.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> I doubt very much that the Geneva Convention requires a "thick WHOIS"<BR>
>>> for the benefit of humanitarian aid. For the benefit of trademark<BR>
>>> lawyers and oppressive Governments, perhaps.<BR>
>>> -----------------------<BR>
>>> Kimberley James Heitman<BR>
>>> www.kheitman.com<BR>
>>> -----------------------<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [<A HREF="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>] On Behalf Of<BR>
>>> Rosemary Sinclair<BR>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 6:48 AM<BR>
>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> However there are some NFPs run for not for profit purposes who belong<BR>
>>> in NCSG and have interests to protect in domain names space. For me they<BR>
>>> include Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontiers, ACCAN, ..... But not ATUG<BR>
>>> (altho we are a NFP org) as our work is on behalf of businesses, cheers<BR>
>>> Rosemary<BR>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> From: "Robin Gross" <robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG><BR>
>>> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><BR>
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:26 +1100<BR>
>>> To: <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><BR>
>>> ReplyTo: "Robin Gross" <robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG><BR>
>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> I agree that a constituency that advocates for commercial interests<BR>
>>> properly belongs in the Commercial Stakeholder Group. NCSG is the only<BR>
>>> place at ICANN that is specifically reserved for NON-commercial<BR>
>>> interests as their goal. It seems this trademark group (NPOC) belongs<BR>
>>> in the CSG since it is primarily concerned with commercial interests -<BR>
>>> especially trademarks and brands. It is not enough to be set up as a<BR>
>>> non-for-profit organization to belong in NCSG. Thousands of<BR>
>>> not-for-profit organizations are set up to support commercial interests<BR>
>>> (like the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, etc) -- but they are set up to benefit<BR>
>>> COMMERCE, so they would properly belong in the CSG.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> It is important that this distinction is made early-on in the formation<BR>
>>> of the NCSG - or it will be entirely over-run by commercial interests<BR>
>>> set up as not-for-profits. Of course these groups are welcome at ICANN,<BR>
>>> but they really belong in the CSG.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Best,<BR>
>>> Robin<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Kimberley Heitman wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Looking at the IP-owner agenda of the NPOC, it's no surprise that there<BR>
>>> is going to be considerable resistance to commercial interests being<BR>
>>> asserted within the NCSG. Obviously the proper place for its shadowy<BR>
>>> members is within the Intellectual Property Constituency with the other<BR>
>>> IP lawyers.<BR>
>>> -----------------------<BR>
>>> Kimberley James Heitman<BR>
>>> www.kheitman.com<BR>
>>> -----------------------<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [<A HREF="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>] On Behalf Of<BR>
>>> Amber Sterling<BR>
>>> Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 11:26 PM<BR>
>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
>>> Subject: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Hi All,<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Thank you for your questions and patience. Attached is the Q&A document<BR>
>>> we created to address your questions about the NPOC. We will send<BR>
>>> updated information regarding our membership towards the end of<BR>
>>> November.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Kind regards,<BR>
>>> Amber<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Amber Sterling<BR>
>>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist<BR>
>>> Association of American Medical Colleges<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> IP JUSTICE<BR>
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director<BR>
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA<BR>
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451<BR>
>>> w: <A HREF="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</A> e: robin@ipjustice.org<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>