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

Sun Feb 13 00:00:57 CET 2011

Dear all,

Having worked on staff for three trade or professional associations and
interacted as a peer with dozens of others, I cannot imagine that the
members of these organisations would ever expect to be granted membership of
a body such as NCSG. Where is the drive for commercial lobbyists' membership
if NCSG coming from? It can hardly be the members who, in my experience,
have far more sense than to endorse such an antagonistic and
counter-productive tactic.

If there is to be a further discussion on 'civility', then brazenly
antagonistic ploys such as this should be included.

I strongly object to any proposed membership of organisations representing
commercial interests joining the NCSG. The legal fact of being a registered
nonprofit, without regard to the organisational goals, is insufficient. If
it were sufficient, we might surely expect that well-known nonprofit, ICANN,
to join the NCSG too.

All the best, Maria

On 12 February 2011 17:05, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. NCSG has always been clear of whom we are and the
> Non-Commercial interests that we represent at ICANN's Internet policy
> development. Would it be possible for Amber and Debbie to be so kind
> as to share here all their candidate NPOC members? Maybe it may
> explain the basis of their proposal and/or point to awaiting conflict.
> regards, Alex.
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> > Ditto. NCSG is a non-profit non-commercial constituency -- the proposal
> does
> > not make any sense.
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 02/11/2011 11:53 PM, 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110212/d808b477/attachment-0001.html>