<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Bill and NCSG Colleagues,<br>
<br>
I have earlier address part of Bill's concerns but let me unpack his
concerns into the single core point, which is clear in what has been
written about the Singapore Pathfinder webinar. The core focus of
NPOC efforts is the operational concerns of Not-for-Proft and Civil
Society organizations, and since Not-For-Profits are Civil Society
organizations, in the interest of brevity NPOC is using the term
Civil Society organizations, and occasionally pointing out that the
concerns and issues being address are individual concerns as well,
just to remind all that NPOC is not forgetting about that area, but
that is why NCUC exists as a sister group under NCSG.<br>
<br>
Civil Society organizations face a number of operational concerns,
both around DNS and in general in the Internet ecosystem. For the
most part their own "brand protection" issues go beyond and are a
bit different from those for commercial organizations. They have to
do with integrity, with abuse and with fraud. They are not mainly
about the issues that would trigger "in house" ICANN processes, or
even make it to court. The current proposed trademark protection
regulations being considered by the EU/EC, where NPOC took a
position, is a case in point. This was not something to be brought
to ICANN, although ICANN and its constituencies could take positions
on the regulations. If there is a confusion here it is that NPOC is
looking at operational concerns from the perspective of its
constituency, Civil Society organizations, and not just from an
ICANN-centric perspective. I am prepared to defend that wider
perspective should someone wish to debate it. <br>
<br>
As for who works with whom on what here, and the involvement of IP
lawyers and ICANN staff in this Webinar, first, that has to be
understood in the above context, the operational concerns of Civil
Society organizations, and not the history of these issues with
ICANN. Second, we expect the Webinar to be a learning experience not
only for the participants, but also for the presenters, including
NPOC, the IP community, and ICANN itself. This is about the
operational concerns faced by Civil Society organizations today, and
those challenges coming on the road ahead, of which there are a
number. It is not about marketing this or that, or dealing with the
baggage of old intra-ICANN issues. Let the initiative be judged by
its fruits, not within a context of old outdated intra-ICANN
differences.<br>
<br>
Sam L., Chair, NPOC Policy Committee (<i>In planes for the next 20+
hours so I will be slow to respond to further comments</i>)<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-02-04 5:42 AM, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A5A19B78-7981-494A-AA66-E62A5F7125A0@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">Hi Lori
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">Actually, I think this
is very healthy and useful discussion. I don’t actually sense
that there's antipathy at work here, but rather just a desire
for clarity and transparency about what we’re all doing why and
who we’re doing it with. That is in everyone’s interest.</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">I think it’d be great if
NPOC really focused in on operational concerns such as trademark
protection for CSOs. That it would do so was the understanding
we reached with Debbie and Amber at the Cartagena meeting in
December 2010 when they agreed to change the name from the
proposed Not-for-Profit Constituency (which was problematic
since NCUC’s members are also nonprofit) to the Not-for-Profit
Operational Concerns Constituency, but subsequently things often
got more blurry. ... [Text deleted ]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>