NCSG Policy Discussion on 2011-10-18 - a couple of follow-up points

[Avri Doria]

On 19 Oct 2011, at 17:12, Alain Berranger wrote:

> 2) I think Bill Drake - please correct me if I got the wrong speaker - said he was puzzled by the meaning of the terminology "Not for Profit Operational Concerns (NPOC)"... In fact, so am I... I recall we had originally proposed "Not for Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC)". The latter was rejected by NCSG-EC. Those on the list who were party to this "compromise" may explain to the rest of us how that was arrived at and why that name was chosen?
> 


All of the organizations in NCUC are also not for profit organizations.
So to many at the time, myself included, it looked like a name to try and one-up the NCUC and somehow claim that you all were the real not-for-profits.

So it was an agreement, one of several (like the one where the NPOC Leadership agreed that all NPOC members would apply to join the NCSG prior to the approval of the constituency and start actually particpating) between the NCSG-EC and the NPOC Leadership.

It was not imposed by NCSG-EC.  But since NPOC already had collateral materials printed with NPOC (or something like that), we were told that while they were willing to change the name they wanted to keep the acronym.  Hence, Not for Profit Operational Concerns.

I was lobbying for Non-Commercial Intelectual Property Constituency and there were some other suggestions  (I think Bill had one with the word charities in it) but NPOC picked the name, and we were all fine with it since it was sufficiently different from Non Commercial Users Constituency.

avri
historian (ncuc)