[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011
Joly MacFie
joly at PUNKCAST.COM
Wed Nov 16 12:16:14 CET 2011
>
> On the issue of the USOC, I would like to reiterate that the USOC may be
> non-profit but it is certainly non-commercial.
A typo?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> On the issue of the USOC, I would like to reiterate that the USOC may be
> non-profit but it is certainly non-commercial. Here is a quote from a US
> case: ‘On review of the statute and the history of its enactment, it is
> apparent that *the primary purpose of these provisions is to secure to
> the USOC the commercial and promotional rights* to all then-unencumbered
> uses of "Olympic" and other specified words, marks, and symbols, see United
> States Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corp., S.A., 737 F.2d 263, 266, 222
> USPQ 766, 768 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 982 (1984), but subject
> to the commercial rights that existed at the time of enactment’ (the
> statute referring to the protection of the Olympic mark). This case,
> clearly indicates that the USOC has commercial rights on the term Olympic
> and, thus, have commercial interests deriving from the name.****
>
> ** **
>
> And here is another interesting article I came across, which in my eyes at
> least makes USOC purely a commercial enterprise:
> http://www.21mktg.com/docs/USOC_Sign_Citi-SportsBusiness_Journal.pdf****
>
> ** **
>
> KK****
>
> ** **
>
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,****
>
> ** **
>
> Senior Lecturer,****
>
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses****
>
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law****
>
> University of Strathclyde,****
>
> The Law School,****
>
> Graham Hills building, ****
>
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA ****
>
> UK****
>
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306****
>
>
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> ****
>
> Selected publications:
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038****
>
> Website: www.komaitis.org****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *Joy Liddicoat
> *Sent:* Τετάρτη, 16 Νοεμβρίου 2011 2:29 πμ
>
> *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 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.*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; 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****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111116/f2d24c5b/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list