NPOC Q&A Document

[Dan Krimm]

Just curious, Rosemary, does ATUG plan on joining the NPOC?

The IP/TM issues are among the most prominent for the general public
interest position as defended by NCUC/NCSG and ALAC.  If the "grunt" on
"our side" ends up not being on "our" side after all, what's the use of
having that grunt anyway?

It just moves the resource asymmetry *within* our own SG, so it doesn't
get to be expressed higher up in the GNSO hierarchy.

That feels like a Trojan Horse, to me.  It's a way of snuffing out the
real public interest position closer to the source, so the Board has even
less of a chance of hearing its expression.

With all its resources, it seems to me the Red Cross should have what it
needs to address any genuine "fraud" issues in DNS without the overkill of
a maximalist position.  What if the claim of "fraud" is itself fraudulent
(if not in the case of Red Cross, then in other cases)?  Who gets to
decide when claims of "harm" are just "brand name bullying"?

It's always the little guy that gets caught in this crossfire.  The big
guns can protect themselves just fine, so I am not sympathetic to RC's
complaints, per se.  This is not just an "operational" issue, it's an
issue of jurisdiction, process, and power.

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 Tue, November 9, 2010 12:16 pm, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
> Hi to all!
>
> for me IPC is in the Commercial Stakeholder Group and Red Cross(and
> others) fit better into NonCommercial Stakeholder Group
>
> I am also keen for NCSG to have big organisational members (with the
> support and resources one gets from being part of a big organisation) to
> deal with our resource/information asymmetry problem....
>
> to be quite direct about this - we need more grunt on our side of the
> policy issues negotiating table
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru
> Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 3:15 AM
> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kimberley Heitman <kheitman at kheitman.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Red Cross does not need trademarks - its emblems are legally protected
>> by
>> other, better, international laws.
>
> Will NPOC be invalided if new NCSG charter is approved?
> (https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?ncsg_charter_board_issue_resolution)
>
> 2.2. Membership
>
> a) vests primary unit of authority (including Council representation)
> only via direct SG-wide voting.
>
> 2.2.1. Eligible organizations.
>
> b) explicit requirement to be non-profit serving only non-profit
> motives and activities
>
> 2.2.2. Ineligible organizations.
>
> c) IPC interests are already being served elsewhere within ICANN
>
> I submit that Board rushing with NPOC approval will then terribly
> fragment NCSG, negating our recent years exponential membership base
> growth and irreparably harm Non Commercial Interests on the internet,
> worldwide.
>
> regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>