Re: [npoc-voice] Chinese Non Profits and NPOC

[Andrei Barburas <abarburas@xxxxxxxx>]

I completely agree with you Klaus, but I believe that we need a
person/persons that is extremely familiar with how different countries in
the world, define and classify NPOs and NGOs.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure that China is not the only country that has
this classification of NPOs.

Maybe it would be a good idea to put this on the agenda for Beijing...

Cheers,



*Andrei Barburas*

Community Relations Services Officer



International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)

P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands

NPOC, ICANN member


Mobile: +31 62 928 2879

Phone: +31 70 311 7311
Fax: +31 70 311 7322
Website: www.iicd.org



*People  ** **ICT   Development*



On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:11 AM, klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>   Dear Friends
>
> Please read this excerpt from an recent article as is raises an important
> aspect for our work which I address at the end of this email
> Civil Society, Chinese Style:The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector in Post-Mao
> China<http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/21246-civil-society-chinese-stylethe-rise-of-the-nonprofit-sector-in-post-mao-chinaby.html>
>
> Written by Chao Guo, PhD, Jun Xu, PhD, David Horton Smith, PhD, and
> Zhibin Zhang, PhD <http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/author.html?id=13051>
>
> Created on Thursday, 25 October 2012 17:11
>
>
>
> “Chinese nonprofits, especially the officially registered ones, do not fit
> neatly into the definitions of nonprofit organizations commonly used among
> Western scholars and practitioners. According to the current classification
> system developed by MOCA, the more than 460,000 officially registered NPOs
> fall into three broad categories:
>
>    1. “Social organizations,” which include economic groups (trade unions
>    and chambers of commerce, etc.), social groups (social clubs, research
>    organizations, hobby groups, etc.), religious groups, and membership-based
>    public-benefit organizations;
>    2. “Private non-enterprise organizations,” which include nonprofit
>    schools, hospitals, and social service organizations, among others; and
>    3. “Foundations,” which include public fundraising foundations (such
>    as Soong Chingling Foundation, China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation,
>    etc.) and non-public fundraising foundations, often referred to as private
>    foundations.
>
> While the majority of NPOs do serve a public- or mutual-benefit purpose,
> these registered nonprofits vary in the extent to which they are autonomous
> and voluntary. In fact, many nonprofit organizations currently registered
> with MOCA are actually “government-organized nongovernmental organizations”
> (GONGOs). Nearly all of the national associations are GONGOs, as are many
> NPO service agencies. There are also many organizations *not* included in
> the 460,000 registered NPOs noted above that operate on nonprofit
> principles but are registered as for-profit businesses, as in the case of
> some private schools and social welfare NPOs. NPO founders have frequently
> taken this path because the formal MOCA registration process is difficult
> to get through in a timely manner, if at all. Becoming a registered
> business is much faster and simpler, and allows NPO leaders to get on
> quickly with their desired service delivery to people in need in a legal
> manner. There are no formal statistics on how many registered businesses
> are NPOs “in disguise,” but estimates suggest there are probably some
> hundreds of thousands in all of China.”
>
> I have just some questions in the light of this article to the NCSG
> leadership: *“Given the current definitions and evaluation criteria for
> NCSG membership, how the hell will be able to greet and integrate the
> Chinese NPO “hoards” that without doubt will soon knock on NCSG’s and it’s
> constituencies doors and quite rightfully demand entry?”* Isn’t it time
> that we adopt criteria and evaluation patterns that reflect the whole Globe
> and not just our own realities? When will be be brave enough to allow entry
> to those who might be a threat to our own carefully guarded bases of
> power?. When will be strong enough to permit opinions that might not be
> ours? When are we ready for real representation and not just the one that
> suits us? When will we stop hiding our own interests behind a sacred multi
> stakeholder model that has been distorted to a near meaningless because we
> allow only those stakeholders that are guaranteed not to rock our boat?
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>