<!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: NPOC Q&A Document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi<BR>
<BR>
broad tent is MUCH better than open church!!!! Thanks Avri!!!<BR>
<BR>
for me it's not so much an issue of protecting Red Cross brand - it's an issue of protecting consumers who might want to contribute to Red Cross from domain name scammer activity<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 3:15 AM<BR>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
<BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
I am not personally advocating for thick WHOIS. I am in fact against it as a matter of personal opinion.<BR>
<BR>
What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one unqualified for NCSG membership. I again refer to the model of the NCSG as a broad tent for differing opinions from the non-commercial stakeholders.<BR>
<BR>
I do think, however, that a good debate on the subject of thick WHOIS is a good thing for the NCSG. In fact I would love to see more substantive reasoned debates on issues like this on the NCSG list.<BR>
<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9 Nov 2010, at 10:10, Kimberley Heitman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>> Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed<BR>
>> constituency, I would not think that mattered.<BR>
>><BR>
>> The CSG's IPC is a related to Commercial trademark concerns, while a new<BR>
>> NCSG constituency, all things being equal, would be concerned with the Non<BR>
>> Commercial aspects of trademarks. (not being a trademark expert i will<BR>
>> not attempt to distinguish between the two, but it has become apparent even<BR>
>> to a non lawyer like myself that the two categories of concerns are<BR>
>> distinct)<BR>
>><BR>
>> I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues<BR>
>> that group wishes to deal with, but:<BR>
>><BR>
>> - is it composed non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non<BR>
>> commercial members<BR>
>> - does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN<BR>
>> issues<BR>
>> - does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies<BR>
>> - is it international in scope<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> a.<BR>
><BR>
> Easy to say from the comfort of a democratic country. A thick WHOIS means<BR>
> death to dissidents in most of the world. I'm astonished that the commercial<BR>
> IP imperatives of the American Red Cross are set to undermine its<BR>
> international humanitarian efforts.<BR>
><BR>
> Red Cross does not need trademarks - its emblems are legally protected by<BR>
> other, better, international laws.<BR>
><BR>
> -----------------------<BR>
> Kimberley James Heitman<BR>
> www.kheitman.com<BR>
> -----------------------<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>