[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011
Nuno Garcia
ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET
Wed Nov 16 00:19:20 CET 2011
Alain, this attack was avoidable and frankly, a bit worrying.
Could you care to explain what is your problem of the U. of Syracuse?
(where is the U. of Syracuse?).
This is clear an "ad hominem" argument - and thus, on my perspective, not
valid at all.
Best,
Nuno Garcia
On 15 November 2011 22:48, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111115/a648c16e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list