Application For New GNSO Constituency in The NCSG -- PIA-CC

[David Cake]

Total agreement with Milton here. We are not the Non-profit stakeholder group, we are the non-commercial - a non-profit group that represents commercial entities is a commercial group.

And yes, existing CSG groups not wanting to let them in is not a reason to keep them out. 

Regards

David

On 12/10/2012, at 6:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Amr:
> The issue here is not whether CCAOI, the organization itself, is a nonprofit.
> The point is that cybercafés, which they purport to represent, are basically businesses.
> I love cybercafé business, and consider them to be on the front lines of developing internet access in developing and some urban and rural areas – but they are businesses. Cybercafes are internet service providers.
>  
> I am sure we would have common ground with them on a number of policy issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that they belong in the CSG.
>  
> Indeed, it would be fantastic if they would join the Commercial Stakeholders Group, or even the ISP constituency (which is what they really are), because that part of the GNSO really needs to be broadened.
>  
> There is a problem with the business and board people generally considering NCSG to be a “dumping ground” for people who aren’t allowed to be represented anywhere else. It is completely unfair for the CSG to lock people like this out simply because they won’t allow a new constituency to dilute their votes. It would be all too convenient for the business interests to push all the diversity into the NCSG and refuse to allow it themselves.
>  
> The solution to this is not to dilute and undermine NCSG by adding a bunch of ISP businesses and calling them “noncommercial,” but to broaden the CSG. Please help us in that agenda.
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:20 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Application For New GNSO Constituency in The NCSG -- PIA-CC
>  
> I'm not sure I agree with labeling the CCAOI as a for-profit entity. As per their application documents, they describe themselves as:
>  
> "Though we, CCAOI, are an association, the approach followed by us is that of an NGO. Right from our membership to the services we provide, all are free of charge. In fact, we play a far more responsible role for building the cybercafé ecosystem and are also responsible for the users, majority of who fall in the age group of 15-35 years as well as the VAS providers. India has over 80 million internet (email) users today, out of which nearly 40% access internet through cybercafés. We also have a forum for the users and our ultimate objective is empowerment of the citizens through Digitization."
>  
> However, I am not very convinced with their application, particularly in Section 3.0: Uniqueness and Representational Focus. It seems to me that they should have sought membership in an already existing constituency within the NCSG rather than creating a new one. IMHO, wether or not they should even be granted membership is still debatable.
>  
> I am curious and would like to learn more about the nature of the relationship between the CCAOI and the Department of Information Technology of the Govt. of India, which is listed as one of its national affiliates on the CCAIO website. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but it sounds very similar to the IT clubs in youth centers in Egypt in terms of services and objectives. The IT clubs are a government program funded and operated by the Egyptian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology that take place at youth centers (amongst other facilities), which officially belong to an NGO, however are also more-or-less financially dependent on funding and oversight by the government. The NCSG charter frankly excludes governmental organizations and departments from being members, but perhaps does not address this sort of scenario as clearly as it should.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
>  
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree - Non-Commercial means non-commercial. So the for profit can go somewhere else.
> 
> On 10/10/2012 8:42 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> 
> ICANN's Silo model indeed produces a problem for this group. I think what
> they really need to do is split themselves for the purposes of ICANN formal
> structures into two groups: "non-profit Public Internet Access" and
> "Cyber-cafes and other commercial shared computer access providers", apply
> for NCSG/CSG group membership but agree amongst themselves that they will
> coordinate strongly between them on promoting the clear common interests such
> a group has.
>  
> I'm afraid I could not support the inclusion of for-profit access providers
> in an NCSG constituency as it violates the non-commercial principle of SG
> membership.
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121012/be7cbf1b/attachment-0001.html>