Draft comment on Cyber-Cafe constituency application for approval

Sun Nov 18 02:59:14 CET 2012

I follow Wendy's words...
Magaly

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> 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/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121117/33bf91a3/attachment-0001.html>