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

[Adam Peake]

<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121009_multi_stakeholderism_revisited_icann_we_can_do_better/>

More inclusive commercial group would be helpful.

Adam



On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
> +1
>
> In the very early stages of Internet access in Cambodia - operated by us, an
> NGO - we even provided for some time a public access point (no coffee!), non
> commercial, to introduce what this whole thing meant, and to offer initial
> services.
>
> But we promoted the idea which was then taken up by some people, first in
> the capital city, then in some provincial towns: to create Internet Cafes -
> and they became an income and employment basis, commercially.
>
> I agree with Milton that Cybercafes are important entry points to Internet
> access for many. But surely many have to struggle to develop and maintain
> their business models. If bigger businesses (in ICANN/GNSO) could cooperate
> closely with smaller businesses (that is what many Cybercafes are) that
> would be an important step into the right direction, I think, to strengthen
> their commercial interests. To put them into a not-for-profit category would
> mean to lead them to fail in their commercial business.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
> Open Institute
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2012 5:20 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>