Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Draft paragraph for temporary agreement on qualifying criteria

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

1. It is approval of the states on the council, not a single state.  Lets 
remember we are doing this at the behest of the GAC, i.e the states.  So 
processes that have formal state processes should be considered.  The ECOSOC 
process for approval is a formal, state based process, and thus, yes, as valid 
as any other process people have put before this group, in my opinion.

2. Being on the list is only 1 criteria, just like having a treaty is just one 
criteria.  The need to prove service to the public interest is another 
requirement beyond that.  That is why I think the criteria for Group Alef 
should be something like:

Pick one of:

- Treaty
- .int list
- ECOSOC general consultative list
- maybe some other list yet to be discovered

+ Pick one of:

- Have protective laws in at least 25 nations
- Have protective laws in at 3 countries in 4/5 UN regions


+  Be doing the work of the global public Interest  (or put as  admission 
criteria - Score at least XX points in a global public interest qualification 
test set up by ICANN based on this group's recommendations)

with maybe extra points for having won a Nobel Peace Prize etc...

Especially if we are going to use this test for some notion of blocking (which 
I do not support) or the creation of a new fangled second reserved list (which 
also makes me queazy) it should be really hard.

For Group Bet, if that were used for acess to RPMs, the qualifications could 
perhaps maybe, be a little looser, but not much.

3. Yes I mean APC is member of NCSG - though I am not its representative.  
Thanks for the kind correction.



avri


On 6 Mar 2013, at 17:06, Alain Berranger wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> 3 quick points:
> 
> 1) "I see the ECOSOC accreditation for general consultative status as 
> relevant as any other criteria, perhaps more so - there are only 146 of 
> these..  I have seen the process organizations go through to get this 
> accreditation.  It is not easy and it is not quick  and it requires the 
> approval of the States that sit on the Council."
> 
> Please share why you see it as relevant? Does being on the lsit indicate the 
> need to receive a priviledge like what we are discussing? Is being on the 
> list a guarantee that the listed NGOs are working for the public interest 
> and/or producing public goods and services? How does one NGO argue it 
> represents civil society? Many are self-appointed!!!!
> 
> 2) "...and while APC is a member of the APC..."
> 
> You probably meant APC is a member of the NCSG..., right?
> 
>  3) "...it requires the approval of the States that sit on the Council.
> 
> For the multitude of NGOs seen as ennemies of the states or of governments, I 
> do not think that a state's approval is that impartial or even relevant? it 
> may even be totally subjective!... (Under Mubarak, a new NGO law in Egypt was 
> regressive and clearly  intended to muzzle freedom of speech and in certain 
> cases put NGO leaders in prison... and some even died there...)  but we are 
> looking for a list with some degree of objectivity... In fact, the UN system 
> is biased in favor of governments in general (where most of their budget 
> comes from) and is notorious for being un-at-ease with multistakeholder 
> models  like ICANN's that theoretically put governments, private sector and 
> civil society on equal footing... Look at ITU where governments come first, 
> private sector second and civil society last...
> 
> Alain
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see the ECOSOC accreditation for general consultative status as relevant as 
> any other criteria, perhaps more so - there are only 146 of these..  I have 
> seen the process organizations go through to get this accreditation.  It is 
> not easy and it is not quick  and it requires the approval of the States that 
> sit on the Council.
> 
> avri
> 
> Note: as I mentioned in the chat, I am an associate member and volunteer 
> staff member of an organization that has ECOSOC general consultative 
> accreditation and considers it an important thing.  I have never consulted 
> this organization, Association for Progressive Communications (APC),  as to 
> whether they feel the need for name or acronym protection.  I participate in 
> this WG as a NCSG member, and while APC is a member of the APC, never thought 
> of them as possibly benefiting from this extra protection until today when we 
> started talking about ECOSOC coincidental with a week when I am trying to get 
> my ECOSOC UN grounds' pass.
> 
> On 6 Mar 2013, at 15:03, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
> > I do not think the ECOSOC list  is of much relevance to this exercise. It 
> > is a relatively exclusive or even ad-hoc club of NGOs that work with the UN 
> > or have collaborated with the UN at some point in their history. It lists 
> > over 3000 NGOs - way too much for the kind of priviledges we are discussing 
> > and not necessarely representative of the millions of NGOs in the world. 
> > This list offers no  reassurance of some kind of international status (like 
> > the Red Crescent Society of Algeria is on the list but not the Red Crescent 
> > Society of Morocco or Tunisia - I don't see the IFRC there - maybe not 
> > looking at the right place as the public list is not searchable... how does 
> > that make sense for our purpose here?). It is almost an arbitrary 
> > list....of "friends" of the UN.... a little like those on Facebook who have 
> > 3000 "friends".... Or to put it differenty perhaps, there are hundreds of 
> > thousands of NGOs, probably more, with generous and worthwhile public good 
> > missions not on this lis!
>  t...
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:55 PM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Draft of working framework for qualifying criteria - to be further 
> > discussed (including added to or changed, if appropriate) upon discussion 
> > of possible protection mechanisms:
> >
> > "The Working Group (WG) agrees that the following is a general description 
> > and starting point for final resolution of the types of organizations that 
> > may qualify for protection mechanisms (if any). The WG believes that it 
> > would be useful, in coming to a final resolution of qualifying criteria, to 
> > park the issue for now in order to discuss possible protection mechanisms, 
> > which discussion may inform the WG's deliberations over qualifying 
> > criteria. The WG intends to return to the issue of qualifying criteria at 
> > an appropriate point in its discussions of possible protection mechanisms.
> >
> > The basic ground upon which either an IGO or INGO may qualify for specific 
> > protections is that an organization has a mission that is in the global 
> > public interest and whose operations are international in scope. The WG 
> > acknowledges that it is extremely difficult to define the global public 
> > interest and it may be that it would be inappropriate for either it or 
> > ICANN to attempt to do so. Nevertheless, the WG agrees that the following 
> > factors may serve as indications that a particular organization would 
> > qualify for protection:
> >
> > (1) The organization, its names, acronyms and (where applicable) its 
> > designation are protected by an international treaty; or
> > (2) The organization, its names, acronyms and (where applicable) its 
> > designation are protected by national laws in multiple jurisdictions, and 
> > its organizational mission is recognized through inclusion on the ECOSOC 
> > list of general consultative NGOs (or similar list)."
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mary
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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
> 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.
>