[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

[Nuno Garcia]

Hi all.

I think we had agreed on that not-for-profit is different of
non-commercial.

I see no reason why NPOC could not support a Chamber of Commerce
application - this clearly falls within the scope of "non-profit"
organization. And the same to workers unions, large cooperative
organizations, foundations, political parties and so on. I recall that some
private foundations have larger budgets than some countries.

And with this thought I go and try to find more info on NPOC because now I
am a bit worried...

Best,

Nuno Garcia

On 15 November 2011 22:55, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>wrote:

> Greetings Nicolas,
>
> I generally buy the Chambers of Commerce arguments... NPOC is not
> submitting any Chamber of Commerce membership application... for the USOC
> case please refer to the stream of emails and we can exchange further, if
> you wish.
>
> Generally I think Avri's criteria of assessing what are the main
> activities of an organization applying for membership is excellent. So in
> reference to the London games, NPOC would support an application by the UK
> Olympic Committee but not by the London olympic games organizing committee
> (See the distinction in Kelly's email response to Avri).
>
> Best
>
> Alain
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  catching up on a lot of discussion folks. This debate may be more
>> advance now than I am aware of.
>>
>> Alain,
>>
>> Don't make this about "being" or "not being" a *non-profit*. It is about
>> being or not being *non-commercial*.  Non-profit and non-commercial are
>> objectivaly distinctive. one of the distinction we chose to make was about
>> the commercial status of the org members themselves, which is a very
>> objective way to discriminate.
>>
>> Tell me straight please, would you have wanted to draft rules that would
>> have enabled Chambers of Commerce to apply for and receive NCSG membership?
>> This is a trust-building or trust-breaking question as far as i'm concern.
>> And a fundamental one at that.
>>
>> Also, why isn't the org in question interested in joining the CSG?
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/2011 2:27 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Kelly for putting evidence of USOC's not-for-profit status
>> squarely on the table. It is now hoped that the NCSG-Executive Committee
>> opponents to USOC's membership will change their minds and rally to the
>> NPOC-Executive Committee's recommendation. Kudos to Avri for her mature and
>> transparent attitude!
>>
>>  I sincerely hope future discussions about pending and new NPOC members
>> will be based solely on evidence, ie. facts verifiable by an independant
>> and uninterested third party. Let it be clear, once again, that the NPOC
>> Constituency will accept only non-commercial members, thus facilitating the
>> work of the NCSG-Executive Committee on admission to the Stakeholders'
>> Group.
>>
>>  Best, Alain
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kelly Maser <Kelly.Maser at usoc.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  Thank you to Alain for speaking up to discuss why the U.S. Olympic
>>> Committee is truly a non-profit entity.   The USOC and its predecessor
>>> organizations have been responsible for overseeing amateur sports in this
>>> country, not just at the elite level but also encouraging sports, healthy
>>> lifestyles, competition and fair play at the grassroots levels as well.
>>> The USOC has many member organizations, some of which are community-based
>>> organizations such as the YMCA or  Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the
>>> Girl Scouts, etc.  But the primary members are the National Governing
>>> Bodies ("NGBs") for the individual sports (*e.g., *USA Track & Field,
>>> USA Swimming, U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association, U.S. Figure Skating, U.S.
>>> Tennis Association).  The majority of the USOC's budget goes to support
>>> athletes, either through direct grants or through funding the NGBs.  The
>>> USOC also provides support to the NGBs (and their athletes) in terms of
>>> governance support, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports psychology
>>> and the like.  The USOC also operates three U.S. Olympic Training Centers
>>> where thousands of athletes train each year.  Here are a few statistics for
>>> you:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, from 2002-2010, these fees were used to assist the USOC
>>> in:
>>>
>>> (a)          annually hosting approximately 25,000 athletes, coaches,
>>> officials and program staff for the National Governing Bodies ("NGBs") for
>>> the individual Olympic sports at its three Olympic training centers
>>> (located in Chula Vista, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado and Lake
>>> Placid, New York) and at its U.S. Olympic Education Center in Marquette,
>>> Michigan, at a cost of  $360 million over that
>>> period;
>>>
>>> (b)          providing support to and sending elite U.S. athletes and
>>> teams to national and international competitions, most notably the Olympic
>>> Games, at a cost of $80 million;
>>>
>>> (c)           working with local communities and 19 different NGBs on
>>> behalf of the Community Olympic Development Programs in Atlanta, Georgia;
>>> Chicago, Illinois; Springfield, Missouri; Moorestown, New Jersey; San
>>> Antonio, Texas; Verona, Wisconsin; and Park City and Kearns, Utah;
>>>
>>>
>>> (d)             directing over $160 million in grants and services to
>>> athletes, including monetary stipends, health services and benefits,
>>> educational grants, and more;
>>>
>>> (e)              providing additional support to 47 different National
>>> Governing Bodies in the form of NGB Programs and Services including sport
>>> performance, coaching assistance, sports medicine, sports science and
>>> organizational support, at a cost of $235 million; and
>>>
>>> (f)              funding the USOC's many other statutory functions.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there are other questions that I could help answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Kelly**
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *Kelly Maser **| Associate General Counsel|** **United States Olympic
>>> Committee** **|** **Office**: 719.866.4115  |** **Cell**: 719.330.0266 |
>>> ** **Fax**: 719.866.4839 | kelly.maser at usoc.org** |** **www.teamusa.org*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* owner-npoc-voice at icann.org [mailto:owner-npoc-voice at icann.org] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Alain Berranger
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 3:09 PM
>>> *To:* Avri Doria
>>> *Cc:* NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu; npoc-voice at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC
>>> Teleconference on 8 November 2011
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thks Avri,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no appetite for minority appeal that I cannot hope to win under
>>> current membership mindset, sense of entitlement, grand-fathering, numbers
>>> and distribution... but NPOC colleagues may decide differently.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we need in general to follow evidence-based membership criteria
>>> and follow the same criteria for all. So my 4 arguments remain as far as I
>>> am concerned and can be verified by evidence (facts) not opinion, hearsay,
>>> bias, etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Different strokes for different folks? For instance, how can we have
>>> NCUC/NCSG individual members working for a law firm or a telecom company?
>>> but we do. The NPOC membership is clear: all are not-for-profit and only
>>> play one side of the street.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To the risk of repeating myself, national olympic committees are
>>> not-for-profits working year in and year out for athletes and not to be
>>> confused with the games organizing committees which are for profit (or at
>>> least not for loss) once in a blue moon when the country is awarded the
>>> games...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance re London 2012: one needs to distingush between the games
>>> organizers -  http://www.london2012.*com*/ <http://www.london2012.com/> which
>>> is for profit and get sponsors to support the 2012 games and the UK Olympic
>>> committee which every year supports UK athletes and get sponsors to support
>>> athletes- http://www.olympics.*org*.uk/ <http://www.olympics.org.uk/>
>>>
>>> Alain
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Assuming there are 14 members who agree with your position, the charter
>>> has provision for an appeal process that includes the possibility of taking
>>> it to a full membership vote if the difference of opinion cannot be
>>> resolved.
>>>
>>> > 1. Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a full
>>> vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which an appeal can
>>> be initiated:
>>> >
>>> > ·      If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
>>> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive Committee
>>> will first take the appeal under consideration.
>>> >
>>> > ·      If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
>>> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision, the NCSG-EC
>>> and those making the appeal should attempt to negotiate a mutually
>>> agreeable solution.
>>> >
>>> > ·      If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
>>> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days, then an NCSG
>>> vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
>>> >
>>> > ·      For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
>>> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as defined in
>>> section 4.0.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some comments below.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Nov 2011, at 15:16, Alain Berranger wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear Colleagues,
>>> >
>>> > I want to state I disagree with the decision to exclude the USOC. For
>>> 4 reasons:
>>> >
>>> > 1) Its vision: to enable America's athletes to realize their Olympic
>>> and Paralympic dreams.
>>>
>>> That is its vision, but it is debatable that is main purpose is to
>>> administer commercial  licensing agreement.  Or at least this seems to be
>>> the resumption of those who voted against their membership.
>>>
>>> The charter indicates:
>>> "3. Is engaged in online activities that are primarily noncommercial,
>>> including, e.g., advocacy, educational, religious, human rights,
>>> charitable, scientific and artistic, and"
>>>
>>> So the question is, what are its primary activities, granting licenses
>>> or supporting athletes.  I have certainly heard arguments on both sides of
>>> this issue, and personally think it is a toss up.  For example, it is well
>>> known that most olympians have to find their own funding in the US.  This
>>> varies by country, but in the US, the US Olympic Committee does not support
>>> athletes as far as I have been able to discover.  So what do they do beyond
>>> sanction events and licensing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 2) its mission: To support U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes in
>>> achieving sustained competitive excellence and preserve the Olympic ideals,
>>> and thereby inspire all Americans.
>>> >
>>> > 3) It is a not-for-profit with IRS exemption under 501 c 3
>>>
>>> As the charter indicates, being not-for-profit is not sufficient.  For
>>> example the Chamber of Commerce in not-for-profit and yet obviously not a
>>> non-commercial entity.   Specifically:
>>>
>>> "4. In the case of a membership-based organization, the organization
>>> should not only be noncommercial itself, but should have a primarily
>>> noncommercial focus, and the membership should also be primarily composed
>>> of noncommercial members.  (E.g., a chamber of commerce, though it may be a
>>> noncommercial organization itself, and might even have some noncommercial
>>> members, is primarily composed of commercial organizations and has a
>>> commercial focus and would not be eligible for membership.)"
>>>
>>> So the question becomes, who are the principles members?  I do not know
>>> the answer to this.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > 4) fundraising is an activity of all not-for-profits, including
>>> sponsoring, and thus does not make a not-for-profit a commercial
>>> organization. I think you are confusing the USOC per se with the various
>>> olympic games hosting organizations set up for Lake Placid, Los Angeles
>>> games, etc...
>>> >
>>> > Alain
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The new NCSG Executive Committee held its first tele-conference on
>>> Tuesday and we made great progress, particularly with respect to
>>> establishing a process for handling NCSG membership applications and
>>> dealing with the NPOC applications that had come in since the election.  So
>>> below are my notes from the EC meeting's discussion.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Robin
>>> >
>>> > NCSG-EC Teleconference - 8 Nov. 2011
>>> > Transcript & mp3 recording:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meetings
>>> > Attendance: Michael Carson, Rafik Dammak, Robin Gross, Milton Mueller,
>>> Klaus Stoll
>>> > NCSG-EC Mtg Discussion Agenda:
>>> >
>>> > - Review of NCSG membership application procedures
>>> >
>>> > - Review of pending NCSG membership applications
>>> >
>>> > - Establishment of NCSG Financial Committee
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > MEETING NOTES:
>>> >
>>> > These 8 orgs were approved for NCSG membership:
>>> > ALSAC / St. Jude
>>> > Australian RedCross Society
>>> > Church of God in Christ
>>> > Goodwill Industries
>>> > International Baccalaureate Organization
>>> > The Association of NGOs, The Gambia (TANGO)
>>> > Water Environment Research Foundation
>>> > YMCA of The Gambia
>>> >
>>> > These 3 orgs were determined ineligible for NCSG membership:
>>> >       1.  Kaswesha Community Resource Center
>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least
>>> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter Section
>>> 2.2.1).
>>> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain
>>> name.
>>> >
>>> >       2.  Civil Society Movement Against Tuberculosis in Sierre Leone
>>> (CISMAT-SL)
>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: Not the exclusive user of at least
>>> one domain name (a requirement for eligibility under NCSG Charter Section
>>> 2.2.1).
>>> > They were invited to re-apply when they have a noncommercial domain
>>> name.
>>> >
>>> >       3.  US Olympic Committee:
>>> > Reason provided for non-approval: USOC is substantially a major sports
>>> licensing business and NCSG is devoted to the protection of noncommercial
>>> interests.
>>> > They were invited to join ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency
>>> as the more appropriate place to protect their interests.
>>> >
>>> > These 7 orgs are undergoing further evaluation:
>>> > Child Protection Alliance
>>> > Information Technology Association of the Gambia
>>> > National Coalition for the Homeless
>>> > National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
>>> > Pilots N Paws
>>> > Tranquil Space Foundation
>>> > Young Life
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ** Attached to this email is a flow chart to explain the agreed
>>> process for handling NCSG Membership Applications going forward.
>>> >
>>> > A few notes on the procedures for handling NCSG Membership
>>> Applications:
>>> >
>>> > Completed NCSG Membership applications should be submitted by the
>>> Applicant to the email address join-ncsg at ipjustice.org for
>>> consideration by the entire NCSG Executive Committee.
>>> >
>>> > NCSG-NCUC Membership application forms are available on the NCSG wiki
>>> (for individuals and for organizations).
>>> >
>>> > Members of the NCSG-EC have 2 weeks to conduct the required due
>>> diligence on the applications (more flexible if a holiday).
>>> >
>>> > Decisions to approve membership applications require the full
>>> consensus of the voting members of the NCSG Executive Committee (NCSG
>>> Charter 2.4.2).
>>> >
>>> > Verification of a named official representative's authority to
>>> represent an organizational applicant should be independently verified by
>>> the EC (NSCG Charter 2.2.4.1).
>>> >
>>> > Aggregate voting / representation is not permitted for organizations.
>>>  Each organization must be represented by a different person.  No single
>>> person (or group of persons, i.e., a law firm) can represent two or more
>>> organizations in NCSG at the same time.  This policy discourages attempts
>>> to game the system through aggregating membership votes.
>>> >
>>> > Organizations with a nonprofit legal structure are nonetheless
>>> ineligible for membership in NCSG if they are substantially a commercial or
>>> business activity and their interests are more appropriately represented in
>>> one of the commercial stakeholder groups (NCSG Charter 2.2.2).
>>> >
>>> > An organization's official representative to NCSG cannot be a GNSO
>>> Council Representative for the Intellectual Property Constituency (or other
>>> officer or member of the IPC or CSG).  Outside trademark lawyers are
>>> discouraged as the official representative for an org to NCSG since NCSG is
>>> devoted to protecting noncommercial interests.
>>> >
>>> > ON A SEPARATE ISSUE:
>>> > The EC is in the process of establishing a NCSG Financial Committee
>>> (as per NCSG Charter 2.1. & 2.6.) and is looking for volunteers from among
>>> the NCSG membership - people with fundraising expertise and time to devote
>>> to NCSG fundraising activities and ICANN resource allocations.  So please
>>> let an EC member know if you'd like to be considered for membership on the
>>> NCSG Financial Committee.  Thank you!
>>> > --------------------
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>> > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
>>> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>> > interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>> > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>> > Skype: alain.berranger
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>>
>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>>>
>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>>
>>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>> O:+1 514 484 7824 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 7824<%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
>>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111115/0b4d11f9/attachment.html>