Draft comment on Cyber-Cafe constituency application for approval

[Avri Doria]

Ps.

New constituency process: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-new-constituency.htm

especially: http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/new-constituency-recog-flowchart-24jun11-en.pdf

1st step  application submission
2nd step 30+10 comment+reply period
3rd step 90 days from step 1 - SG evaluates

....

I am pretty much willing to be added as an individual signer on this statement.

- With some changes, like deleting the part about it being an NCSG stmt and perhaps even adding a bit of the content about the comment being as much for NCSG EC as for the Board

- And maybe the addition of some comments on the nature of the NCSG charter  requirement that the members of an organization being primarily non-commerical with a non-commercial basis as the fundamental requirements for all prospective candidate constituencies, whether the mother group is non-commercial or not.

2.2.1

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.)

from 2.3 
para 2

"A group forming a Constituency should have a common interest or background, i.e. be homogeneous with respect to some dimension of relevance to ICANN and to the NCSG. Its focus must be sufficiently defined and have substantive relevance within both the ICANN and the NCSG context and with respect to its core mission.  All members of the group should already either be members of the NCSG or be qualified for membership under the rules established in section 2.2 on Membership."


thanks again

PPS: unfortunately we missed commenting on: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/asep-recommendations-26oct12-en.htm
wish i had realized that last night, might have sent my own comments in.

On 17 Nov 2012, at 09:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> While I agree with much of the content of this comment and it is great to see the NCSG comment on something (thanks to you for the draft),  I am wondering if the NCSG should comment.
> 
> We, as an SG, have a decision role in this process.   I forget the time table, but the NCSG EC has the task of deciding on the CCAOI application and either agreeing to accept it as a candidate constituency or not.  It then informs the Board of its decision and the Board in its oversight role decides if they agree with the NCSG EC.  It they agree all is well, if they don't, then there is more process to slog through.
> 
> In some ways, I see this comment period as perhaps being as much for the NCSG EC's benefit as for the Boards.  The NCSG EC should take the comments into account as well as the work of the WG Robin set up in making the decision.  And they should do that with in the time prescribed in the new constituency process.
> 
> Perhaps, though with minor edits, the NCUC and NPOC could use the draft as their Constituency  comment or this could be submitted as a single of joint constituency comment.  I think having a comment come from the constituencies is appropriate.
> 
> But thanks again for doing the work.  Having people who spring into action to do stuff  to keep us from missing important dates is critical, and you do that a lot.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 Nov 2012, at 09:00, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> Since today is the last day for public comment on the proposed new cybercafe constituency and nothing has been sent in, I took the liberty of composing something brief that I hope members can approve. I've done so as many members have expressed firm opinions about this issue, and it is important that NCSG sends in a comment, especially since the group is applying to join NCSG.
>> 
>> The proposed comment follow; if there is no objection by the end of the day, I propose to file it on behalf of NCSG. Thanks everyone!
>> 
>> "The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is pleased to see that there is increased interest from developing regions in ICANN participation. Having long been the most-diverse (geographically and ethnically) stakeholder group within not just the GNSO but ICANN as well, we have always made outreach, accessibility and engagement part of our mission and have as a result welcomed numerous new individual and organizational members from across the globe into our membership, including through the GNSO's newest constituency, the Not for Profit Operational Concerns (NPOC) constituency.
>> 
>> There is consensus in the NCSG - from both NPOC and Non-Commerciaul Users Constituency (NCUC) members - that the new CCAOI application for constituency status belongs not in the NCSG but in the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG). We have carefully reviewed all the documents and information provided in the CCAOI's application, and believe that it is a commercial organization whose operations do not fit within NCSG's formal charter or objectives.
>> 
>> The CCAOI's stated reason for applying to join NCSG is that it is a non-profit organization which among its activities promotes public interest goals of education and access. While non-profit organizations are members of NCSG's NPOC constituency, NPOC members must first and continue to be NCSG members as well, i.e., remain resolutely non-commercial in their focus. The fact that individual cybercafes within the wider CCAOI organization may not charge fees to their users does not by itself make either these cybercafes or the CCAOI itself a non-commercial organization. Rather, we note from its application that its members include also "e-commerce service providers", "Internet solution providers" and entrepreneurs, and its plans include the use of a mobile payment platform to alleviate the problem of low credit card usage and cash safety.
>> 
>> We therefore believe that the proper place within the current GNSO framework for CCAOI is the CSG. The fact that the CSG's rigid constituency structures may mean that CCAOI could potentially belong to either the Internet Service Providers (ISP) constituency or the Business Constituency (BC), or that either of these groups may need to modify its charter to allow a commercial organization of CCAOI's nature to apply, is not NCSG' concern or issue. Similarly, if the GNSO's own structure requires change in order to accommodate a diverse organization such as CCAOI, it is not a solution to just put them in the NCSG simply because we are the most flexible and open GNSO stakeholder group. These limitations are problems that are neither the fault of CCAOI or NCSG, and should if necessary be addressed by the GNSO as a whole and perhaps also the ICANN Board's own Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), who had worked with the fledgling NCSG to develop a charter that reflected non-commercial values and interests.    
>> 
>> Should this not be feasible, NCSG believes that those members and elements of CCAOI that are purely non-commercial could individually join NCSG. As a representative organization that has clearly commercial sources of funding and for-profit members, however, CCAOI as it is currently constituted clearly does not belong within NCSG.
>> 
>> Respectfully submitted,
>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group"
>> 
>> 
>> Mary W S Wong
>> 
>> 
>> Professor of Law
>> 
>> 
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> 
>> 
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> 
>> 
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>> 
>> 
>> Two White Street
>> 
>> 
>> Concord, NH 03301
>> 
>> 
>> USA
>> 
>> 
>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>> 
>> 
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> 
>> 
>> Webpage: 
>> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> 
>> 
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>