Draft comment on Cyber-Cafe constituency application for approval

Sat Nov 17 22:59:35 CET 2012

+1 -- add my name, and I also support a joint constituency statement.

And I do think Alain's distinction between commercial cybercafe's and
non-commercial PIAPs is a useful point to clarify "members and elements of
CCAOI that are purely non-commercial" -- i.e., possibly add "for example,
Telecentres operating as non-commercial Public Internet Access Points").

Echoing the thanks for putting this together.

Dan

--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.

At 2:35 PM -0500 11/17/12, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>Thanks Mary,
>I'd support this individually, and like the approach of a joint
>NCUC/NPOC comment (or later endorsement, depending on timing).
>
>--Wendy
>
>On 11/17/2012 11:53 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>https://www.torproject.org/
>http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/