RE: [npoc-voice] NPOC to testify before the US Senate Commerce Committee

[Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>]

Exactly...

ICANN has become elitist with participation very costly.  It makes sense for 
our community to have the one or 2 concerned and active people who can afford 
to travel represent us...even if that includes attorneys who are typically 
associated with IP interests.   The interests of non for profit sector 
intersect the concerns of civil society and intellectual property owners.  They 
are not mutually exclusive.  I do not think that is accurate or fair to 
categorize NPOC as another outlet for the IPC  -- which is how certain members 
of the academic and noncommercial constituencies continue to spin our mission.  
We are here because we promote programs and services that serve the greater 
good without having to worry about the short term concerns of stock value and 
bottom line profit margins for for-profit orgs.    While we may be educating 
children, feeding the hungry, funding medical research supporting athletes or 
bringing disaster relief, we still have to conduct business in a commercial 
world - including protecting the consumer from fraud and poor quality services 
that may be falsely rendered in our name.   Online fundraising fraud is rampant 
and a legitimate concern of nonprofits.   Our funds are held in the public 
trust and while we support the efforts of ICANN to include all sectors of the 
community from the bottom up, we are not in the economic position to monitor 
ICANN's activities in the same way that the larger companies do.   We are 
always mission first which means we are on the ground and on task.  We don't 
have the luxury of dedicated Internet or Trademark attorneys in most cases so 
we rely on the expertise of others in and out of the independent sector.    
Also, we are not academics musing about the theoretical applications of the 
Internet.  The vast majority of nonprofits are working  in the real world 
confronting real problems on extremely  limited budgets.   I don't think that 
the fraud potential can be underestimated.   Ask any charity, not matter what 
their mission, when some high profile disaster happens, the proliferation of 
fraudulent sites become even worse in the current space.   Adding more 
extensions adds more costs to watching and enforcement and it is not clear to 
me the benefits that society as a whole is netting.   Until further thought and 
clarification on enforcement mechanisms are in place and until the costly 
barrier to entry is reduced for nonprofits who cannot afford to play the gTLD 
game,  ICANN's new programs are ignoring the potential for real harm to civil 
society by creating more avenues of fraud and confusion.

Say or do whatever you want on the Internet provided that you are not using 
another's identity to do it.  That is one of our biggest issues.   It is not 
about stifling speech or over reaching on trademark protection - it is about 
protecting civic minded individuals from sending money or personal information  
to fraudsters masquerading as charities and the charities not having the 
resources to stop them.   Each new gTLD raises the risk exponentially and even 
organizations that may not have traditionally been part of the ICANN debate are 
now concerned enough to become engaged.    We are facing all of the challenges 
of the larger, well-funded and well-known names out there whether for profit or 
not for profit.


From: owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Hansen, Anjali
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:06 AM
To: 'Alain Berranger'; Amber Sterling
Cc: npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [npoc-voice] NPOC to testify before the US Senate Commerce 
Committee
Importance: High

There was a great editorial in the Washington Post:  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html

I was asked to testify on behalf of the Council of Better Business Bureaus for 
this Wednesday's hearing on new gTLDs before the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.  I will raise many of 
the same concerns as Angela.  In addition, I'd like to respond to the criticism 
in a press report:  
http://www.domainpulse.com/2011/12/09/icann-critics-complain-over-new-gtlds-to-senate-but-little-any-can-do/.
  It states that the "Williams is a stooge for the part of the intellectual 
property lobby that is vociferously opposing the introduction of new gTLDs, and 
as Kieren McCarthy recently pointed 
out<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ip-lobby-ymca>, the YMCA has never been 
involved in ICANN's activities until the Dakar meeting in October this year."  
They will be able to say the same thing about us and I want to offensively 
raise the issue that we are only now getting involved.

I would appreciate any advice on that issue.  My thoughts are that our 
organization, like many nonprofits, are not high tech industry groups in the 
business of registry and registrar operations to justify following ICANN 
policies closely.  We don't have thousands of dollars to jet set all over the 
world to attend ICANN meetings.  ICANN only this past Spring publicly announced 
the TLD expansion plan.

Let me know other thoughts.  My testimony is due today and I'm finalizing it 
within the next couple of hours.

Many thanks.

Anjali



Anjali Karina Hansen | Attorney

Tel: 703-247-9340
Fax: 703-276-0634
Email: ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust

Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 800
Arlington, VA  22203

This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please 
notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system 
without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.

From: owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Alain Berranger
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Amber Sterling
Cc: npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] NPOC to testify before the US Senate Commerce 
Committee

Thanks Amber and thanks to Angela,

I think this speaks well for the large global NGOs raising their funds in the 
OECD and emerging countries. We will need to develop a position for the 
multitude of small NGOs in the developing world.
I know NPOC wishes to speak for all NGOs.

Best, Alain
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Amber Sterling 
<asterling@xxxxxxxx<mailto:asterling@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi All,

Very exciting news!  On Friday afternoon, NPOC was invited to testify before 
the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 
regarding ICANN's new gTLD program.  The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, 
December 8, at 10:00 a.m. ET.  The hearing will be held in the Russell Senate 
Office Building (Room 253), but will also be webcast live.  For more 
information, please visit the Commerce Committee 
website<http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=22f4a71e-93e9-4711-acec-3ed7f52277cc&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>.

The YMCA has graciously offered to take point and Angela Williams, General 
Counsel of the YMCA of the USA, has graciously agreed to provide such testimony 
on behalf of the YMCA and NPOC members.  I would like to thank Angela Williams, 
Michael Carson, Debbie Hughes, and Judy Branzelle in particular for their hard 
work drafting over the weekend!

The testimony Angela will be giving on Thursday is attached and focuses on the 
economic impact not-for-profit organizations will face if the new gTLD program 
proceeds unchanged.  This testimony is quite similar in content and tone to 
previously issued NPOC statements.

Please let me know as soon as possible if there is anything in the testimony 
that your organization finds objectionable.  Otherwise, with the short notice 
of the hearing we unfortunately do not have time to further wordsmith/refine.

If you are able, NPOC encourages you or a representative from your organization 
to consider attending the Senate hearing in person.
Kind regards,
Amber

Amber Sterling
Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
Association of American Medical Colleges
2450 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
(P) 202-862-6139<tel:202-862-6139>
(F) 202-828-0659<tel:202-828-0659>




--
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<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


________________________________
Join us in Philadelphia, March 24-26, for the 2012 ASCD Annual Conference & 
Exhibit Show! Visit www.ascd.org/annualconference to learn more.




This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of 
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or 
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any 
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.