RE: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

["David Hernand" <david@new.net>]

Eric:

Thanks for your email and those from others who share our concerns regarding
this matter.  Eric, we will send you by separate email copies of the prior
correspondence and other relevant information requested below.

As for GA membership, New.net and many of its employees are members of the
GA.

Best regards,

David Hernand

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:08 AM
To: david@new.net
Cc: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision


Dear Mr. Hernand,

Would you be so kind as to do favors for me.

1. Your one citation is helpful but I think we need more history on
communications here.

2. Obviously there is correspondence between you and the BC please provide
us
with the references.

3. You must have reviewed the rules and procedures for such an endeavor,
please
provide the citations to such authority.

I hope that Sotiris and the IDNO pay special attention to this matter as
they
prepare to draft similar concepts for themselves.

Is new.net a member of the GA?

It would appear that this situation touches upon just about every aspect of
ICANN policy.  Certainly security is at issue; transparency; structure; and
even
the technical aspects of inclusiveness.

Best to all concerned,

Eric

David Hernand wrote:

> 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-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

--
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