<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>I usually hate "me too" postings, but amidst all the email flurry and discussion, I thought I should add that (1) it's actually heartening to see disagreement and consequently constructive discussion among NCSG members, which I hope carries over into healthy, robust and, ultimately, meaningful policy discussions; and (2) I agree completely with Avri and David on the various excellent points they make, particularly in relation to (i) the need to accommodate divergent views within our "broad tent"; (ii) figuring out how best to characterize and, if necessary, distinguish between the various types and configurations of a "non commercial" individual/entity; and (iii) encouraging new constituencies/interest groups/whatever they end up being called, to form and new members to join NCSG.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm still catching up on all the NPOC documents and emails, but I wondered whether it would be possible at this stage to discuss a more specific and potentially less confusing moniker for the NPOC constituency-in-formation? For instance, would it be useful to partially resuscitate an earlier suggestion made (either by Avri or Bill Drake, I think) that the new constituency be called something along the lines of "Non Profit Community Service Providers"? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Professor of Law</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</EM></DIV>
<ADDRESS>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Two White Street</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Concord, NH 03301</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>USA</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Email: <A href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Webpage: <A href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></ADDRESS><BR><BR>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>David Cake <dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>11/9/2010 11:35 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: NPOC Q&A Document</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>At 10:28 AM -0500 9/11/10, Avri Doria wrote:<BR><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>Hi,</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>I am not personally advocating for thick WHOIS. I am in fact </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>against it as a matter of personal opinion.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>unqualified for NCSG membership. I again refer to the model of </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>the NCSG as a broad tent for differing opinions from the </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>non-commercial stakeholders.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR><BR>I agree with Avri. The NCSG is, and must be, a broad tent, <BR>because membership is based on organisational structure and goals. <BR>The two organisations within the NPOC that we know of, the American <BR>Red Cross and Association of American Medical Colleges, are clearly <BR>not commercial, and so clearly belong within NCSG.<BR>Not every non-profit organisation belongs in NCSG (Rosemary <BR>has already nominated ATUG, a NFP with primarily commercial <BR>membership, I would strongly put organisations such as INTA in that <BR>same category and absolutely reject their entry into NCSG - not for <BR>profit and non-commecial are different issues), but there will be <BR>NCSG members whose policy positions do not happen to agree with <BR>current NCUC majority/leadership positions, and we have to have <BR>processes that reflect and embrace that.<BR><BR>I honestly think these organisations belong within NCUC as <BR>well, despite their policy differences with NCUC majority opinions. I <BR>do appreciate that this makes things difficult for both NCUC <BR>leadership and the organisations in question, but I think that is a <BR>flaw in the Constituency system.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>I do think, however, that a good debate on the subject of thick </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>WHOIS is a good thing for the NCSG. In fact I would love to see </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>more substantive reasoned debates on issues like this on the NCSG </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>list.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR><BR>Absolutely. It is a complex issue, with legitimate concerns <BR>on both sides. I personally do not favour a thick WHOIS (and any <BR>version of thick WHOIS that has a chilling effect on legitimate free <BR>speech is something I would oppose), but I would like to see solid <BR>policy debate on the issue, and I certainly think NCSG should have <BR>room for a range of opinions on this issue and others.<BR>Regards<BR>David<BR></SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px">
<font face="Arial" size="2">
</font><br> </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px">
<font face="Arial" size="2">As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law
Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now
known as the </font><b><font color="#003399" size="2" face="Arial">University of
New Hampshire School of Law</font><font color="#0000cc" size="2" face="Arial">.</font></b><font color="#0000cc" size="2" face="Arial"> </font><font size="2" face="Arial">Please
note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the
convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the </font><b><font color="#003399" size="2" face="Arial">University
of New Hampshire School of Law</font></b><font color="#003399" size="2" face="Arial">,</font><font size="2" face="Arial"> please
visit </font><u><a href="http://law.unh.edu"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">law.unh.edu</font></a></u>
</p>
</BODY></HTML>