[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011
Joy Liddicoat
joy at APC.ORG
Wed Nov 16 03:29:23 CET 2011
Thanks Alain … and in the interests of helping us do so (regain the tone that is, and with thanks for the vigorousness, if not for the intemperance, of the various posts by others) … I sensed we were getting close to some shared areas of rough consensus (across the posts by Avri and subsequent exchanges with Kelly and others) and I would favour keeping working towards that.
As an aside, I’ve witnessed similar styles of arguments to those on this list (although on different topics) at the United Nations where there are more than 13,000 registered civil society groups covering almost every conceivable interest group or human rights topic (what’s the criteria for a women’s human rights group, or a non-government group etc etc) Plus a few inconceivable and yet unimagined (my own favourites being the UFO group – which I guess is probably funded by aliens, but I am not sure of the business model or the nature of their non-commercial interests …;)
I have previously expressed my personal concerns about discriminatory licensing policy of the IOC in relation to sporting events hosted by gay organisations not being given permission to use the word “Olympic”. This is an issue in other human rights forums, and I would not want any membership criteria in this stakeholder group to perpetuate that, but that is a different issue from commercial/non-commercial points previously raised.
Cheers
Joy
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 11:48 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011
Sir,
Frankly your tone is unacceptable - at any time from anyone - but coming from an U. of Syracuse senior academic, I'm not impressed! Annoyed or not however, I have tried to keep my comments substantive and based on facts;
On a substantive basis, two points as it seems the "facts" on which the decision was made are wrong: i) the hundred of millions of network television licensing revenues do not go to OCs but to the games' organizing committee - or am I wrong here and need to be corrected - please do so if that is the case and we will all learn about this? ii) When I visit the USOC website, I have to dig deep to find a modest sponsorship reference to Coca Cola... so where are all the corporate ads you are referring to? and if they were more, where would the problem be?
It seems clear to me, referring back to Avri's comments, and to Kelly's email exchange with Avri, and scanning the USOC website, that the principal activity of USOC is to support athletes and the cost of their participation. That is the criteria for a non-commercial classification. On the issue of brand protection, I'm unsure where the distinction lie between commercial and non-commercial... I see brands (and logos) being protected by all segments of society.
I do not think corporate sponsorships/donations, whatever the size by the way, make an entity commercial per se. If one used that criteria, your own university (or mine) would be deemed commercial, just because it accepted $30 million from JP Morgan Chase or, in the case of Schulich School of Business (where I am an Executive-in-residence) receiving tens of millions from the Schulich family. I do not think it is the case for neither institutions.
I do hope that the tone of exchange will return to normalcy.
AB
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
Alain
Nothing in this message alters the basic facts upon which the decision was based, namely the hundreds of millions of dollars in network television licensing deals and corporate advertisements on the USOC website, and the extent to which USOC’s perspectives on brand protection are fundamentally in alignment with those of the CSG. No one is going to change their minds. If you want to keep harping on it, you can, but frankly you are just annoying people.
--MM
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:27 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011
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. <http://www.london2012.com/> 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. <http://www.olympics.org.uk/> 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 <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261> f: +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451>
> 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 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824> ; M:+1 514 704 7824 <tel:%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 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824> ; M:+1 514 704 7824 <tel:%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 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824> ; M:+1 514 704 7824 <tel:%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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111116/763a9c3b/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list