Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

Mon Nov 14 01:32:17 CET 2011

Milton, we did not agree with it. We settled on it for now. We were reminded by the NCSG Chairperson of the unanimous voting ruled. You have stayed the course with your opinions about this. There was nothing for us to do at that time. However, it's not necessarily a dead issue. 

Michael 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 4:51:27 PM 
Subject: Re: Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011 

Alain: 

The EC representatives of the NPOC actually ended up agreeing with the decision about the eligibility of USOC, as far as I could tell. 

We did not have much of an argument about it. If you think they made a wrong decision, please take it up with them. 

Here is the argument which seemed to convince your NPOC colleagues: 

The GNSO is carefully divided into two “Houses” (Contracted parties and Noncontracted parties). 

The Noncontracted House is evenly split into commercial and noncommercial stakeholders. Most votes on the Council require support across both Houses, and a majority within a House requires support across the two stakeholder Groups. 

The point of these elaborate divisions is to balance power - to make sure that any decision that comes out of the GNSO has broad, near-consensus support. To allow commercial organizations to pile into the NCSG, or vice versa, destroys that balance. This is true even when the organization is legally nonprofit, but which has many, many similarities of mission, interest, finances and scope with a commercial entity, particularly with respect to brand protection. 

--MM 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 5:09 PM 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
Subject: 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 / 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/ 

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 

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/20111114/1298505e/attachment-0001.html>