RE: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

[PacificRoot Hostmaster <idno@tallship.net>]

Roeland,

You are too kind ;)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Good luck. I remember when that particular exclusion was made, ostensibly to
> keep NSI out. It also excluded the rest of us whom were running registries.
> IODesign has the same problem. Yet, none of us are allowed in the registry
> constituency either (NSI is the exclusive member there), nor are we allowed
> to start our own without BoD approval. All that is left is the GA, which has
> no power.
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: David Hernand [mailto:david@new.net]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:01 AM
> |> To: council@dnso.org
> |> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Members of the Names Council:
> |> 
> |> New.net feels compelled to elevate to the attention of the 
> |> Names Council
> |> certain recent actions of the Business Constituency to deny 
> |> the efforts of
> |> our company to participate in ICANN processes as a member of 
> |> the Business
> |> Constituency.  We bring this matter before the Names Council 
> |> as a last
> |> resort after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to 
> |> resolve it first with
> |> leadership of the Business Constituency.
> |> 
> |> Earlier this year, New.net applied for membership in the Business
> |> Constituency.  As many of you know, New.net does not fall 
> |> into the category
> |> of an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, an ISP or any 
> |> of the other
> |> constituencies within the DNSO, and yet we do operate a 
> |> business that relies
> |> on the Internet for its existence and counts among the vast 
> |> majority of its
> |> customers small and medium-sized enterprises that also rely 
> |> on the Internet.
> |> Accordingly, we thought it logical for us to join the 
> |> Business Constituency.
> |> We also thought that the Business Constituency would welcome our
> |> participation given recent statements of its leadership 
> |> regarding their
> |> desire to broaden the Business Constituency's membership to 
> |> include a larger
> |> number of small business interests to balance its current 
> |> domination by
> |> large corporate interests.
> |> 
> |> After significant delay, our application was rejected by the Business
> |> Constituency's "Credentials Committee," which informed us 
> |> that New.net does
> |> not meet the Business Constituency's charter redquirements 
> |> because New.net
> |> is a "registry/registrar."  We then asked the BC Secretariat how such
> |> charter requirements comply with provisions in ICANN's 
> |> Bylaws that expressly
> |> prohibit constituencies from denying membership to a person 
> |> or entity on the
> |> basis that such person or entity also is a member of another ICANN
> |> constituency.  We received the following explanation:
> |> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: BC secretariat [<mailto:secretariat@bizconst.org>]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:58 AM
> |> 
> |> The BC charter does not exclude registries and registrars 
> |> from membership
> |> merely because of their participation in another 
> |> constituency. The Charter
> |> distinguishes providers of network connectivity/ transport, 
> |> domain name and
> |> other services that enable the development of electronic 
> |> business, from
> |> their customers. The BC is an independent voice for the 
> |> customers of such
> |> providers.  It is the potential divergence of interests, not the mere
> |> participation in another ICANN constituency, that underlies 
> |> the membership
> |> criteria.
> |> 
> |> By any reasonable interpretation of this definition, a large 
> |> portion of the
> |> Business Constituency's current membership should be 
> |> excluded: AOL, AT&T,
> |> British Telecom, Clear Communications, Deutsche Telecom, 
> |> Korea Telecom, MCI
> |> Worldcom, Movicom, SITA (operator of the .aero registry), 
> |> and Telefonica,
> |> just to name the obvious.  Indeed, two of the three BC 
> |> representatives to
> |> the Names Council represent "providers of network 
> |> connectivity/transport."
> |> 
> |> With all due respect to the ability of individual 
> |> constituencies to devise
> |> their own rules and operating procedures, we implore the 
> |> Names Council to
> |> intervene in what is obviously an egregious abuse of 
> |> discretionary power. We
> |> specifically request that the NC demand that the BC either 
> |> (a) immediately
> |> request the resignation of all BC members who meet the above 
> |> criteria,
> |> including the resignation from the NC of the representatives 
> |> from AT&T and
> |> Clear Communications; or (b) direct the BC to revise its 
> |> rules within 30
> |> days to more broadly encompass the business community and reconsider
> |> New.net's application for membership.
> |> 
> |> Your timely attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
> |> 
> |> Best regards,
> |> 
> |> David Hernand
> |> CEO
> |> New.net
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> David M. Hernand
> |> CEO
> |> New.net
> |> 15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 2000
> |> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA
> |> Phone: 818-385-2004
> |> Fax:   818-385-2010
> |> david@new.net
> |> 
> |> 
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> |> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> |> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> |> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html