[ncsg-policy] Re: [ncsg-ec] RE: my review of the staff's edit to our SG charter.

Nicolas Adam nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM
Sat Feb 12 22:33:11 CET 2011 

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.

Nicolas

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

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list