Draft comment on Cyber-Cafe constituency application for approval

[Hakikur Rahman]

+1

Hakikur

At 09:20 18-11-2012, William Drake wrote:
>+ 1
>
>Bill
>
>On Nov 17, 2012, at 20:35, 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/