Fwd: Application For New GNSO Constituency in The NCSG -- PIA-CC

[Cintra Sooknanan]

This is a very interesting suggestion Avri,

Given the characteristics and the inclusive nature of At Large I am
inclined to agree with you (this group will have to confirm that their
primary objective in ICANN's At Large is to serve the internet end user).

Also, this is something that the At Large Rules of Procedure Review Working
Group will have to be mindful of, as many of the RALOs currently vary in
terms of their membership requirements.

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree there is a place for them in ICANN.
>
> They exist in pretty much one area and they combine both commercial and
> non-commerical while serving users.
>
> Sounds like an ALS to me.
>
> cheers,
>
> avri
>
> On 14 Nov 2012, at 18:50, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> > I suggest avoiding a "you can't get there from here" message, meaning a
> message that says there's NO place for the groups within ICANN. I consider
> that answer unacceptable.
> >
> > Having said that, they clearly don't belong in NCSG. So if not, where?
> >
> > My suggestion is to agree with Adam and expand upon his point that they
> are VERY well-suited for the ISP constituency (which I would further
> suggest be renamed to the "Infrasructure Constituency"). Yes, it means that
> small cybercafes share a constituency with AT&T ... but then ALL ICANN
> constituencies have to deal with a mix of large and small players and the
> current ISP group does neither has nor merits immunity from such diversity.
> >
> > Making such a proposal turns a negative NIMBY-sounding response into
> something that is constructive, inclusive, fully within the current
> structure while perhaps, even, a bit creative (if a bit SOBBY).
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> >
> > On 14 November 2012 09:40, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Adam et al,
> >
> > As I see it, CCAOI is an NFP Indian Trust and represents varied groups
> in India such as connectivity and content providers, public Internet access
> points, private Cybercafes owners, social mission telecentres and Internet
> users related to all of the above. It is an unique hybrid/mixed bag
> organization and does not fit neatly anywhere in ICANN as a member. It
> certainly fails to meet NCSG membership criteria and would not be
> admissible for NPOC membership as a result. In fact, it looks to me that
> there is no obvious place for CCAOI to become an ICANN member, as our
> current structure stands.
> >
> > If ( a big if given the NCSG charter that regulates NPOC's activities!)
> NPOC was allowed to use a single membership criteria of NFP status, as it
> advocates, then yes, CCAOI would be admissible as an NPOC member.
> >
> > I will comment elsewhere on the new Constituency application, but will
> say right away that the first cut analysis by Dave Cake meets with my
> agreement: the business side into CSG and the non-commercial side into NCSG.
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012, Adam Peake wrote:
> > Shouldn't the ISP constituency be involved in this discussion?
> >
> > From the application documents, looks like they are trying to create an
> association, rather than being an already established group.
> >
> > Perhaps as a member of NPOC rather than a new constituency?
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > I agree - Non-Commercial means non-commercial. So the for profit can go
> somewhere else.
> >
> > On 10/10/2012 8:42 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> > ICANN's Silo model indeed produces a problem for this group. I think what
> > they really need to do is split themselves for the purposes of ICANN
> formal
> > structures into two groups: "non-profit Public Internet Access" and
> > "Cyber-cafes and other commercial shared computer access providers",
> apply
> > for NCSG/CSG group membership but agree amongst themselves that they will
> > coordinate strongly between them on promoting the clear common interests
> such
> > a group has.
> >
> > I'm afraid I could not support the inclusion of for-profit access
> providers
> > in an NCSG constituency as it violates the non-commercial principle of SG
> > membership.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
> interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
> reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
> si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
> sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
> votre coopération.
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
> use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by
> anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person
> responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited
> to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message,
> in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this
> e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Evan Leibovitch
> > Toronto Canada
> > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > Tw: el56
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121114/0831bee7/attachment-0001.html>