<html><head><style type="text/css">body {word-wrap: break-word; background-color:#ffffff;}</style></head><body><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px"><span style="font-size: 12px">Hi,<br></span><span style="font-size: 12px"><br></span><span style="font-size: 12px">I apologize for not providing my context within the charter regarding the proposed edits to membership requirements. To me, the statement without edits is subjective and allows for value judgements on perspective members. It would be nice to see the statement be more clear in what is and is not allowed. I am happily welcome suggestions as it seems my suggestion is too extreme. What I am seeking is more clarity within the charter as to what the definitions of commercial and noncommercial. This may seem silly to some but many trade associations believe they are noncommercial, have tax designations to prove it, represent other noncommercial entities and yet are denied by the NCSG. <br></span><span style="font-size: 12px"><br></span><span style="font-size: 12px">Kind regards<br></span><span style="font-size: 12px">Amber</span></div><br><br>-----Original message-----<br><blockquote style="; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px"><b>From: </b>Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM><b><br>To: </b> NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<b><br>Sent: </b>Sat, Feb 12, 2011 21:33:11 GMT+00:00<b><br>Subject: </b>Re: [ncsg-policy] Re: [ncsg-ec] RE: my review of the staff's edit to our SG charter.<br><br></div>Unless Debbie and Amber provide non-abstract examples of who the actual wording might illegitimately exclude, than i guess we should err on the side of flexibility towards "more non-commercial" than towards "may be part-commercial" ... . Debbie? Amber? Is this too much to ask? Please excuse my asking if you've done this already.<br><br>Nicolas<br><br>On 2/12/2011 8:16 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote:<br>> I also find completely out of purpose to admit commercial<br>> organizations in the NCSG.<br>><br>> Yet, regarding the original document, are you referring to the comment<br>> numbered as T6?<br>><br>> I would also like to clarify the question on what are large<br>> organizations based not only on their member count, but also on some<br>> other criteria (closer to Avri's position).<br>><br>> Best regards<br>><br>> Nuno Garcia<br>><br>> On 12 February 2011 12:09, Konstantinos Komaitis<br>> <k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk> wrote:<br>>> I too find this proposal extremely alarming and I strongly object the idea<br>>> of NCSG opening its membership to commercial organizations. As Robin says,<br>>> we need to draw a line.<br>>> The strength of ICANN is its multi-stakeholder model and the ability of<br>>> all stakeholders to express their views and concerns. Each stakeholder<br>>> group represents specific interests and NCSG is the place for civil<br>>> society, human right groups and advocates of civil liberties. It does not<br>>> make sense for commercial organizations to be part of NCSG especially<br>>> since there are other places within the ICANN structure where they can air<br>>> their concerns.<br>>> I think we need to set some boundaries. The same way we respect commercial<br>>> interests, let's show some respect for non-commercial ones.<br>>><br>>> KK<br>>><br>>><br>>> On 12/02/2011 02:15, "Dan Krimm"<dan@MUSICUNBOUND.COM> wrote:<br>>><br>>>> +1<br>>>><br>>>> Any org merely structured, itself, as an NPO that nevertheless has a<br>>>> formally stated mission in its own articles of incorporation to serve the<br>>>> interests of a for-profit/commercial "secondary" constituency does not<br>>>> serve the interests of a non-commercial constituency.<br>>>><br>>>> Dan<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> --<br>>>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and<br>>>> do<br>>>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> At 5:53 PM -0800 2/11/11, Robin Gross wrote:<br>>>>> I strongly object to Debbie and Amber's request that NCSG open up its<br>>>>> membership to commercial trade associations.<br>>>>><br>>>>> NCSG is the *only* place at ICANN that is supposed to be free from<br>>>>> commercial influence so other important goals can be pursued. All of the<br>>>>> other 5 constituencies in the GNSO are commercial in nature. And many in<br>>>>> At-Large are commercially oriented, as "noncommercial" is not part of its<br>>>>> mission. But NCSG is the only place that is reserved specifically for<br>>>>> non-commercial interests and it is important to keep this space free from<br>>>>> commercial concerns, which permeate in every other nook and cranny of<br>>>>> ICANN. ICANN's model was designed to allow a specific space for only<br>>>>> noncommercial interests to be promoted as a way of advancing the health<br>>>>> and development of the Internet. Human rights can never depend upon<br>>>>> commercial interests alone to succeed, as one example of "other" goals<br>>>>> besides commercial ones ICANN might want to consider. Without a barrier<br>>>>> of some kind between the two worlds, noncommercial interests will be<br>>>>> over-run by the well-financed commercial interests at ICANN. Of course<br>>>>> commercial interests have a place in policy development, but ICANN must<br>>>>> leave a single solitary space that cannot be over-run by commercial<br>>>>> interests if it wants to claim it represents "the global public<br>>>>> interest".<br>>>>><br>>>>> If we opened up NCSG to commercial trade organizations, groups like the<br>>>>> Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or the International<br>>>>> Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) would join. I bet Big<br>>>>> Pharma trade associations would be among the first to sign-up to NCSG<br>>>>> (since their interests are so woefully under-represented at ICANN between<br>>>>> the IPC and the BC).<br>>>>><br>>>>> No, I think we have to draw a line at some point -- and it is with<br>>>>> commercial trade associations. They don't belong in NCSG. They have a<br>>>>> legitimate place in policy development, but it isn't going to be in the<br>>>>> non-commercials' name.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Best,<br>>>>> Robin<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:NCSG Charter-2011-02#21F217.doc<br>>>>> (WDBN/«IC») (0021F217)<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>>>>><br>>>>>> Hi,<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Thanks for the edit pass.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> On 'civility' I expect we can come to any agreement. As you said, it<br>>>>>> has such a broad meaning.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> I took a quick look at the other comments, and some of your recommended<br>>>>>> changes seem like they would be substantive changes to the charter that<br>>>>>> was approved by a vote in the NCSG. I have been very careful to not<br>>>>>> make<br>>>>>> substantive changes during this process. I will read it more carefully<br>>>>>> this weekend. I would think that I would need to have consensus in the<br>>>>>> EC for making any substantive changes on behalf of the NCSG. I would<br>>>>>> like to see where the discussion goes on your proposals.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> But of course I will forward them to the SIC and Staff, with any<br>>>>>> comments that are generated on these lists. And I would expect you to<br>>>>>> offer them as a comments during the comment period.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Best Regards,<br>>>>>> a.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 14:31, Amber Sterling wrote:<br>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Hi,<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Debbie and I reviewed the proposed NCSG charter together and our<br>>>>>>> edits/comments are attached. Please let me know if you have any<br>>>>>>> questions.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Kind regards,<br>>>>>>> Amber<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Amber Sterling<br>>>>>>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist<br>>>>>>> Association of American Medical Colleges<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]<br>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:44 PM<br>>>>>>> To: NCSG EC; NCSG Policy Committee<br>>>>>>> Subject: [ncsg-ec] my review of the staff's edit to our SG charter.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Hi,<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Here is a summary of my comments. I intend to send this to Sam<br>>>>>>> Monday<br>>>>>>> morning.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> In some cases these comments may not make sense without Sam's comment<br>>>>>>> in<br>>>>>>> the text. I guess sometimes they might not makes sense in any case.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> These comments can also be found in the document itself.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Comments:<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Re 1.2.2 (c) Inclusion of civility<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> If necessary I am sure we will include the word 'civility'. Many of<br>>>>>>> the<br>>>>>>> NCSG members, especially those in NCUC, see this particular<br>>>>>>> requirement<br>>>>>>> for civility as being problematic in that it requires a value judgment<br>>>>>>> close to political correctness in order to make a judgment of what is<br>>>>>>> civil and what is not. Especially in a multi-cultural organization<br>>>>>>> often one cultures directness is another cultures incivility. We also<br>>>>>>> believe that this criteria has been used improperly by the Ombudsman<br>>>>>>> and<br>>>>>>> others in ICANN's past to limit freedom of expression.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Re 2.2.3 - definition of large and small organization<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Personally I prefer the original NCSG definition and recommend that<br>>>>>>> the<br>>>>>>> Constituency process includes this instead. the problem with the<br>>>>>>> criterion here is that certain organization will be excluded from<br>>>>>>> membership based on not being large enough to be small.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> a. Organizations that have more than 50 employees, or are membership<br>>>>>>> organizations with more than 500 individual members, shall be<br>>>>>>> classified<br>>>>>>> as "large organizations".<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> b. Organizations that are composed of 10 or more organizational<br>>>>>>> members<br>>>>>>> that qualify as "large" under criterion (a.) above shall be classified<br>>>>>>> as "large organizations".<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> c. Organizations that do not qualify as large organizations shall be<br>>>>>>> classified as "small organizations".<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 2.2.8 Inactive Membership<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> While it is reasonable to include a sentence to indicate that members<br>>>>>>> can resign, i don't think we need to have names on the inactive list<br>>>>>>> times out.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Also, at this point we do not have dues. We are considering the<br>>>>>>> introduction of voluntary contributions i the future, but at this<br>>>>>>> point<br>>>>>>> membership in the NCSG is like membership in ISOC, no payment<br>>>>>>> necessary.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 2.2.10 Sam had a question on outreach and coordination between<br>>>>>>> constituency Outreach and SG outreach. recommended adding:<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Membership outreach will be coordinated with Constituency outreach<br>>>>>>> efforts and any outreach efforts established by the GNSO or ICANN.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> <a href="2.4.2.1">2.4.2.1</a> Requirements for appeal and the question of whether there<br>>>>>>> should<br>>>>>>> be weighted notion of bringing the case for consideration.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> We thought about this and decided that while the voting threshold<br>>>>>>> includes the proportionality, the raising of the issue did not need<br>>>>>>> to.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 2.4.3 Chair election - changed the line to read:<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> A Chair can serve, at maximum, 2 full one year terms[SE1]<br>>>>>>> consecutively.<br>>>>>>> There must be at least one intervening term before a member can be<br>>>>>>> elected again as chair;[AD2]<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> [SE1]For consideration: Has there been discussion about when the<br>>>>>>> terms<br>>>>>>> would begin/end? That could be specified in here, but not required.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> [AD2]not really. Basically that gets defined on an election by<br>>>>>>> election basis. I was criticized once for making the charter too long<br>>>>>>> by getting too much into detail. This sort of thing does not seem to<br>>>>>>> really need codification, especially since creating a generic rule can<br>>>>>>> get confusing. On the other hand, I think there was an ambiguity<br>>>>>>> about<br>>>>>>> whether a chair could serve again in the future, so I added<br>>>>>>> clarification.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Anyone have something else to add?<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Assuming the constituency process is approved, I think the changes Sam<br>>>>>>> made were mostly ok. None of my comments is really big, except for<br>>>>>>> perhaps the one about big and small organizations that create an empty<br>>>>>>> spot for many of our small organization that are not big enough to be<br>>>>>>> small under the staff' definition.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> thanks<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> a.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> <NCSG Charter-2011-02-11_Amber-Debbie.doc><br>>>>>>> ----<br>>>>>>> Everything about this list: <a href="http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-ec">http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-ec</a><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> ----<br>>>>>> Everything about this list: <a href="http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy">http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy</a><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></blockquote></body></html>