RE: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

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.

This is the very reason that I recomended dissolving the DNSO constituency
structure both at the last MdR meeting, last year, and later in WG-Review
(see http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html). If the
structure does not empower all participants then it is seriously broken and
needs to be either fixed or replaced. Since both options are resisted by the
ICANN, for a period of years, the only logical conclusion is that the ICANN
wants it that way. It is a purposeful mechanism for disenfranchizing
specific groups. The self-same groups that were the major impetus for
creating new TLDs in the first place (there is some serious irony available
here). Note also, the continued resistance to empowering the GA in any
serious way. The natural constituency for individual domain name holders is
the GA. One of many factiods that keep getting overlooked. Yet, it is the
single group that they specifically do NOT wish to empower (no vote anywhere
that counts and not a single seat on the Names Council).

Of course, it doesn't help when the other constituencies get together and
force the GA to pass non-sensical resolutions, as they did at MdR last year.
All constituency members are ALSO GA members, thus undermining the GA
further (anyone that thinks that I didn't notice that, is kidding
themselves).

The bottom-line is that the systems is broken from the start. After this
amount of time, the fact that it remains broken can only be attributed to
the fact that the ICANN powers-that-be wish it to remain broken and they
must have a reason. Now, I am an optimist and usually follow the rule of
"that which can be adequately explained by rampant idiocy, is usually not
malevolent". However, given the quality and variety of the players and the
duration of the problem, the rampant idiocy argument is holding less water
everyday that this goes on.

In short David, NewNet, like MHSC, will never have a vote and will never be
part of the power clique. From historical basis, the main reason is that
both of us follow the way of the profit margin, as applied to internet
infrastructure operations. Neither of us are sufficiently socialist.

--
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----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-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html