Results of the Chartering process

[Alex Gakuru]

I am yet to come across commercial interests kind and caring to the
plight of consumers that they rush to  rescue, protect and advance
consumers rights and interests from, well, overbearing commercial self
interests. Have long opposed their claim to project selves as
"consumer defenders" for marketing, PR to gain competitive edge in
their market places. They should stick to "customers" "clients" and/or
"subscribers" from whom they derive huge profits.

On 6/28/11, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with most of this note,  I would like to point out that there is
> nothing wrong in us helping the commercial actors in the Consumer area to
> find their way to the CSG.  Just as the CSG has leant a helping hand in the
> NCSG growth, I think it appropriate that we should now try to help them as
> much, not only to show our gratitude but also to allow them to experience
> the same benefits we have found in diversity.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2011, at 16:12, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
>
>> Hi - I support the concept of a CC in both the CSG and the NCSG. Not that
>> it's NCSG business to push for one in the CSG, but the possibility should
>> clear the way for a purely NC CC to be formed within the NCSG. If one does
>> eventually form within the CSG, the two CCs could work together to advance
>> a fuller consumer agenda and awareness. For now, the CC that could form
>> within the NCSG will have to follow both the newly-approved constituency
>> formation process AND abide by the new NCSG Charter (once formally
>> approved by the NCSG membership).
>>
>> On a possible Academic Constituency, Rosemary and I thought it would make
>> sense given (1) the number of individuals that are academics and
>> researchers who span a number of specialty areas, from technical to law to
>> political science and who are already involved in NC issues; (2) the
>> possibility that NCSG members can join more than one constituency; (3) the
>> possibility that some academics and researchers may wish to be more
>> closely associated with an Academic Constituency than any other and so
>> choose to join that rather than, say, NCUC or CC; (4) the indications from
>> the Board, Nom Com etc. that greater academic participation at ICANN is to
>> be welcomed; and (5) the value that an Academic Constituency may be able
>> to provide, in the form of papers, public comments and so on.
>>
>> Rafik, since you were the NCSG Councilor the Board thought would be the
>> one to reach out to the academic community, I'd be interested (like
>> Rosemary) to hear your thoughts as I don't want to impose or tread on
>> anyone's turf either.
>>
>> Hope everyone who was in Singapore had a productive meeting and an
>> enjoyable visit, and are safely home without suffering too much jet lag!
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>> Two White Street
>> Concord, NH 03301
>> USA
>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
>> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>> >>>
>> From:	Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> To:	<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>> Date:	6/28/2011 11:47 AM
>> Subject:	Re: Results of the Chartering process
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I said in an earlier note, I am an advocate of there being two Consumer
>> Constituencies - the NCSG-CC and CSG-CC.  The topic seems important enough
>> and diverse enough to have both, just as we now have both an C and a NC
>> constituencies that are predominantly concerned with IP.  The precedent
>> for having both has been established at this point.
>>
>> As for orgs such as INTUG, that could be handled by the commercial
>> oriented groups having an observer role it the members of the NCSG-CC were
>> interested.
>>
>> I have copied the Consumer Constituency list since the issue concerns that
>> list and not all of that list's members are on the NCSG list.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:03, David Cake wrote:
>>
>> > At 4:23 PM +0300 28/6/11, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>> >> It would be very sad if we lost the true meaning of "consumer" to
>> >> large/corporate users.
>> >
>> > Whatever we call them, organisations like INTUG (that Rosemary was
>> > formerly Chair of) I think would be very valuable within ICANN, have a
>> > very valid role to play, and clearly are in support of the consumer
>> > agenda theough they represent mostly business users of telecomms not
>> > individuals. I fully support such organisations being represented within
>> > ICANN.
>> > But as commercial users, while they have more in common in attitude with
>> > NCSG, they technically belong in CSG. Hence we have a problem - how is
>> > NCSG to support such organisation without admitting them as members?
>> > I think working to a constructive solution to this issue would be more
>> > valuable than either ignoring the issue or moving ahead with a
>> > constituency strategy that doesn't take into acocunt some really
>> > valuable organisations.
>> > Regards
>> > David
>> >
>>
>> ------
>> Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
>

--
Sent from my mobile device