SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

Tue Nov 9 21:24:16 CET 2010

Hi Avri

Why "international in scope" ? 

I have an organisation in mind that is just focused on Australian consumers.....

Cheers

Rosemary

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Avri Doria
Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:15 AM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

Hi,

Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed constituency, I would not think that mattered.

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)

I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues that group wishes to deal with, but:

- is it composed  non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non commercial members
- does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN issues
- does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies
- is it international in scope

a.

On 8 Nov 2010, at 19:01, Dan Krimm wrote:

> This might be a compelling argument for me if in fact the IPC did not
> exist as a separate constituency itself.
> 
> But the IPC's very existence seems to speak of an explicit litmus test
> that is unique in the GNSO.  In short, this litmus test is special, unlike
> any other litmus tests, because it has its own formal constituency in GNSO
> already.
> 
> Given this precedent in the GNSO, I would think it bears careful
> consideration.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -- 
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, November 8, 2010 3:47 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I tend to think that agencies like the Red Cross, which are essential
>> public service organizations and/or charities do belong in the NCSG since
>> their primary purpose is a non commercial purpose - helping people without
>> thought for profit.
>> 
>> I think the fact that they have trademark concerns that may conflict with
>> the other trademark concerns in the NCSG is beside the point, that is part
>> of NCSG being a broad tent for all non profit/ non commercial
>> organizations, be they advocacy, service, charity, education ...
>> 
>> What is most important to me, and I thought to the NCSG, is that the main
>> purpose of the organization and its members, if it is an aggregate, be
>> something other then profit or commercial intersts.  This is something
>> which I think is the case with the 80+ non profit organizations that came
>> into the NCSG via their history as NCUC members.   And that include the
>> Red Cross, whether International or National.
>> 
>> I do not think we need litmus test on the issues a constituency or its
>> members believe in as long as the driving concern is a non profit and non
>> commercial concern.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 8 Nov 2010, at 18:22, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually, Red Cross's trademarks are protected by the Geneva Convention
>>> 1864 - so GAC can look after it. Even in the US, misuse of the emblem is
>>> a criminal offence.
>>> 
>>> I doubt very much that the Geneva Convention requires a "thick WHOIS"
>>> for the benefit of humanitarian aid. For the benefit of trademark
>>> lawyers and oppressive Governments, perhaps.
>>> -----------------------
>>> Kimberley James Heitman
>>> www.kheitman.com
>>> -----------------------
>>> 
>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>> Rosemary Sinclair
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 6:48 AM
>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>> 
>>> However there are some NFPs run for not for profit purposes who belong
>>> in NCSG and have interests to protect in domain names space. For me they
>>> include Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontiers, ACCAN, ..... But not ATUG
>>> (altho we are a NFP org) as our work is on behalf of businesses, cheers
>>> Rosemary
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
>>> 
>>> From: "Robin Gross" <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:45:26 +1100
>>> To: <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> ReplyTo: "Robin Gross" <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>>> 
>>> I agree that a constituency that advocates for commercial interests
>>> properly belongs in the Commercial Stakeholder Group.  NCSG is the only
>>> place at ICANN that is specifically reserved for NON-commercial
>>> interests as their goal.   It seems this trademark group (NPOC) belongs
>>> in the CSG since it is primarily concerned with commercial interests -
>>> especially trademarks and brands.  It is not enough to be set up as a
>>> non-for-profit organization to belong in NCSG.  Thousands of
>>> not-for-profit organizations are set up to support commercial interests
>>> (like the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, etc) -- but they are set up to benefit
>>> COMMERCE, so they would properly belong in the CSG.
>>> 
>>> It is important that this distinction is made early-on in the formation
>>> of the NCSG - or it will be entirely over-run by commercial interests
>>> set up as not-for-profits.  Of course these groups are welcome at ICANN,
>>> but they really belong in the CSG.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Kimberley Heitman wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Looking at the IP-owner agenda of the NPOC, it's no surprise that there
>>> is going to be considerable resistance to commercial interests being
>>> asserted within the NCSG. Obviously the proper place for its shadowy
>>> members is within the Intellectual Property Constituency with the other
>>> IP lawyers.
>>> -----------------------
>>> Kimberley James Heitman
>>> www.kheitman.com
>>> -----------------------
>>> 
>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>> Amber Sterling
>>> Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 11:26 PM
>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: NPOC Q&A Document
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your questions and patience.  Attached is the Q&A document
>>> we created to address your questions about the NPOC.  We will send
>>> updated information regarding our membership towards the end of
>>> November.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Amber
>>> 
>>> Amber Sterling
>>> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
>>> Association of American Medical Colleges
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101110/7bd65265/attachment-0001.html>