Draft comment on Cyber-Cafe constituency application for approval

[Maria Farrell]

Does it make sense, then, to submit the piece as a joint ncuc/npoc comment,
and not an ncsg one?

I'd support that, as an ncuc member.

On 17 November 2012 15:39, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Mary,
>
> Thanks a lot for an excellent statement.
> On a personal basis, I agree with much of the spirit of your proposed
> comment and take the opportunity to run it by NPOC-voice to solicit an NPOC
> wide view. However, as Avri points out, the NCSG-EC has to decide on a
> recommendation to the Board as per the timeline Robin indicated. So, it
> seems inappropriate for NCSG-EC to make a public comment at this early
> stage such as the one you suggest or any other one for that matter, as it
> would essentially have the effect of making a decision regarding the
> application during the public comment period.
>
> There are 2 points I would like to raise:
>
> 1) telecentres for social purposes, usually located in schools, clinics,
> community centers, remote villages, etc... - for instance see
> http://www.telecentre.org/ for a look inside the Telecentre movement -
> are non-commercial public access Internet points (PIAPs) while cybercafés
> are essentially commercial, even if located in very poor and under serviced
> areas, because they are mostly entrepreneurial in their organization, with
> a livelihood or profit making purpose. The former could be housed in NCSG
> (as Members) while the latter could be welcomed into CSG.
> 2) we should distinguish between the proponent and it's adequacy to be the
> leader of the creation of a new constituency and the need for a new
> constituency. If it is confirmed that there is a need for some kind of a
> new constituency, then NCSG-EC has to also decide on it's recommendation
> regarding if  the proponent is likely to adequately lead the creation of
> that new constituency.
>
> I hope this helps! Alain
>
>
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012, 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121117/a938a795/attachment-0001.html>