<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/2012 12:33 PM, Adam Peake
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1KgPQUy4pGTbe3P5uZSki6UMHtTpqQcdnwPCDHDL7ikCw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">Shouldn't the ISP constituency be involved in this
      discussion?
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>From the application documents, looks like they are trying to
        create an association, rather than being an already established
        group.  </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Perhaps as a member of NPOC rather than a new constituency?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    Is NPOC an organization sheltering for-profits?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Norbert Klein<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1KgPQUy4pGTbe3P5uZSki6UMHtTpqQcdnwPCDHDL7ikCw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div><span></span></div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Adam</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <span></span>
      <div><br>
        On Thursday, October 11, 2012, Marc Perkel wrote:<br>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree -
          Non-Commercial means non-commercial. So the for profit can go
          somewhere else.<br>
          <br>
          On 10/10/2012 8:42 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            ICANN's Silo model indeed produces a problem for this group.
            I think what<br>
            they really need to do is split themselves for the purposes
            of ICANN formal<br>
            structures into two groups: "non-profit Public Internet
            Access" and<br>
            "Cyber-cafes and other commercial shared computer access
            providers", apply<br>
            for NCSG/CSG group membership but agree amongst themselves
            that they will<br>
            coordinate strongly between them on promoting the clear
            common interests such<br>
            a group has.<br>
            <br>
            I'm afraid I could not support the inclusion of for-profit
            access providers<br>
            in an NCSG constituency as it violates the non-commercial
            principle of SG<br>
            membership.<br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>