[EC-NCSG] membership applications

Fri Aug 3 22:59:44 CEST 2012

Alain,

You are simply wrong to say NPOC had no say in the NCSG Charter.  Please be more careful about making uninformed statements and wild accusations in the future.

NPOC's representative in these NCSG Charter negotiations, Debbie Hughes, did ask for some changes to the NCSG Charter, and they were accommodated in the charter.

But no one has suggested commercial players should be allowed into NCSG - until you now.

Robin

On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I beg to differ: it is _not_ the case that NPOC had no say in the charter.
> 
> Not only were Debbie and Amber on the NCSG EC the entire time it was discussed, they participated in discussions.  How much they took back to the NPOC, I do not know as you did not have an open email list at this time.
> 
> Also, there were discussions with Debbie, Amber, other members of the NCSG-EC, ICANN legal staff, Rob from Policy Staff and the Board on the charter, on open issues in the charter, on the agreements of the charter and the agreement that the two charters (NCSG and NPOC) would go through the agreement process together, just to make sure no one felt left behind or not included.
> 
> And finally, many NPOC members had been accepted and were listed as voters during the vote to approve the charter.  I do not remember how many bothered to vote and of course do not know how they voted, but many had the opportunity to vote for or against.
> 
> So you may not like the fact that the NCSG excludes non-commercial actors, but it was discussed and your leadership participated in those discussions.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 3 Aug 2012, at 15:23, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
>> Dear Avri,
>> 
>> NPOC never had any input into NCSG charter.
>> 
>> On Friday, August 3, 2012, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just to quote specific chapter and verse:
>> 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+Current+NCSG+Charter
>> 
>> "
>> 2.2.1. Eligible organizations.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> 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.)
>> 
>> 2.2.2. Ineligible organizations.
>> 
>> The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non‑profit in form);
>> 
>> "
>> 
>> As the one who negotiated the language with the Board and with ICANN Legal staff there was a very clear intent on all our parts to make sure that the differentiation between commercial and non-commercial was made.  We specifically did not depend on the non-profit language since this varies depending on national law, with many countries not even having such a status, while still having non-commercial entities.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 3 Aug 2012, at 11:03, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> Alain,
>>> Just a reminder: we have had the discussion about non-profit status vs. non-commercial status many times before. The Recording Industry Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute are both set up as non-profit corporations, but in both cases they are commercial trade associations that directly and openly lobby for commercial interest groups. Thus, non-profit status is not, by itself, sufficient to qualify for NCSG. In our charter we require that the mission or purpose of the organization be noncommercial. There has never really been any controversy about this principle (although there has of course been debates about its application), so it is not true to say that Robin is being arbitrary.
>>> 
>>> --MM
>>> 
>>> From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 5:15 PM
>>> To: Robin Gross
>>> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; npoc at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] membership applications
>>> 
>>> Robin,
>>> 
>>> A little immediate feedback:
>>> 
>>> 1) ASCD-noted
>>> 
>>> 2) I disagree with the argument about CPA as the notion you invoke of a "true non commercial organization" - to use your words - is pretty fuzzy and arbitrary. If non commercial means  not for profit, then CPA is non commercial. To avoid these interpretations, NPOC simply  uses the not-for-profit status as defined per the national legal and regulatory authorities. It is not culturally appropriate or sensitive  to do otherwise.
>>> 
>>> 3) ITAG - disagree - ITAG had NFP status under Gambian law...
>>> 
>>> I will get back  to NCSG-EC on the remaining 9 applications in order to clear the backlog soonest.
>>> 
>>> Alain
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Alain Berranger wrote:
>>> Thks Robin,
>>> 
>>> Very useful to have the history from you. With that information, I will now work at our end and advise the NCSG-EC of developments as they occur.
>>> 
>>> Best, Alain
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>> Okay, I've gone and done some research in the archives.  Looking at the list below and checking with the NCSG-EC records:
>>> 
>>> 1.  ASCD was accepted as a NCSG member back in February.
>>> 
>>> 2.  CPA was denied membership in Dec because it was deemed more appropriately an initiative of governments and business working together as opposed to a true noncommercial organization.
>>> 
>>> 3.  ITAG's application was not accepted because it was too commercial of a focus for NCSG membership (Dec. 2011).
>>> 
>>> 4.  We have not seen NCSG membership applications for the other organizations listed below.  So if these groups want to apply now, they should use the online form (or if you have a previous application to NCSG they filed, just submit that).
>>> 
>>> Thank you.  I hope this can help to clear this up so we can move through this group expeditiously.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Alain,
>>> 
>>> Some of those orgs were already accepted for NCSG membership before you joined the EC (Do you know which ones?).  Take a look at the current NCSG membership list which is available online from a link from NCSG's membership page here so we do not re-evaluate groups that we have already accepted - will do.
>>> 
>>> And I don't think we've seen NCSG applications from some of those groups yet (which ones please).  If there are applications that were filed and not addressed, just provide a link to that application (it should be on this email list where applications go) or have the group use the online form so we can get a NCSG application from them. With our proposal, we are trying to avoid a second application from the original NPOC one. I think this proposal holds for at least some of the pending applicants.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Alain Berranger wrote:m
>>> 
>>> […]
>>> 
>>> These 12 pending appl
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg