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

[Evan Leibovitch]

I'm new to the list and am finding this discussion rather ... fascinating
... both in regard to the content and the pro-active effort to stifle
dissent.

Denying membership to an organization based on its "perspectives" -- as
opposed to its mission and how it *spends* its money -- seems like trying
to pre-determine policy outcomes. If it so happens that some NPOC members
think that name protection is an issue, well, then it's an issue. I can
think of many reasons why groups like the Salvation Army, or PBS, or Oxfam,
would want to protect their names from being the victim of fraud or gaming.
Such "perspectives" do not render them suitable as business constituents.
Nor does the size of their budgets or their models of fundraising.

There's nothing inherently evil about NPOC or NPOC members -- or
perspective NPOC members -- agreeing with the BC on specific issues; surely
they will differ on others. Slanting debate by keeping out orgs who have
their "perspectives" pre-judged seems anti-democratic and (thus) opaque.

I mean, if we're going to disqualify participants based on their success at
raising lost of money from "network television licensing deals" and
"corporate advertising on their website" would you allow this
organization<http://suathletics.syr.edu/>to participate in NCSG? Or
are they also more appropriately a business
entity?

I, for one, am not annoyed, Alain.

Evan Leibovitch
ALAC Vice Chair and NCSG Liaison
Toronto Canada
evan at telly.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111114/03ea7f4a/attachment-0001.html>