[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Dnso] Re: Reply to Hurtado
As you referred to the organization I work for, I am answering. My answer
also includes not only information, but also opinions, that I would not
have expressed otherwise, as this constituency is not my business.
First of all, I think that, instead of feeling hurt, you folks should
strongly reconsider your position, because otherwise it will be impossible
for ICANN to accept your constituency. I believe that not searching openly
for founding members, and allowing them to comment before May 3rd has been
the worst mistake. You might still have time to do so if you rush it, but
time passes very very quickly.
I see an important problem with your mail. You believe that it is up to you
to decide who you invite, and judge on their size and importance, instead
of following an open and transparent process, solicitating publicly for
founding members. Even if ASIMELEC represented only one and half ISPs
(definitely not the case), to ICANN it has the same rights are EuroISPA. If
you forget this, you make things very difficult for ICANN.
I find of very poor taste and unacceptable your uncalled for flame and
personal attacks on somebody who comments on the ISP charter, as hard as
this comment might be. It would be much more positive to say how you are
going to resolve the problems that have been pointed out.
I would like to continue by refreshing your memory on several issues:
On Spain, EuroISPA, and representativity.
- AUI participated in the early efforts to create EuroISPA (May 26th, 1997
meeting in Brussels), but decided, publically, that it was not the right
parter, as it does not represent ISPs. It has never claimed to do so.
- EuroISPA decided to acquire as Spanish partner an organisation that
represents less than 1% of Spanish traffic. Bringing this to your attention
only brought agresiveness and vague promises to look for the right member
which never became true.
- ISPA Spain, a non-incorporated forum, was formed by all associations that
at that time represented Spanish ISPs, as a lobbying forum to assure that
their voice was independently heard in the Commission, at to clarify that
EuroISPA did not represent any signinficant part of Spanish ISP interests.
Your Spanish partner was invited and never showed up. It was created AFTER
you announced your partner in Spain.
- After a paper from EuroISPA was presented to the Commission, the legal
spanish government representative officially questioned EuroIPSA having any
- ASIMELEC probably represents now over 90% of Spanish traffic and over 98%
of Spanish traffic that is related to any association. It is the
association the government negotiates with when something has to be
negotiated with ISPs. But again, this is not the issue. They issue is that
they are an ISP association that has been excluded from the founding
members that have all the power in the charter that you have sent.
On Manuel Hurtado,
- Manuel participated in the July 7th, 1999 meeting in Brussels, where he
questioned the representativity of EuroISPA for any matters related to ISPs.
- I don't know what is the status, but at that time I requested from you
that he be added to the European Panel of Participants list.
- He is the person who informs Spanish ISPs and government of developments
on Internet Governance.
ISPs are not my business... but on the document that you have presented, I
cannot but agree that:
- It has been sent on the limit deadline, without any request for public
comments before submission time.
- It gives illimited power to the founding organisations, and there is no
opening for adding any other founding organisations. It is deeply
- I did not understand very well Manuel's comment and I have not had the
time to think about it in detail, alll I can say is that the requirements
for single ISPs are unclear and subjective, open to interpretation by the
At 09:33 9/05/99 +0200, Michael Schneider wrote:
>Dear Mr Hurtado,
>>ASIMELEC is very sad to see that some ISP organizations, without further
>consultation, are trying to capture the ISP Constituency of the DNSO.
>After returning from a business trip lasting several days I've just read
>your comments with a mixture of astonishment and dismay. Your choice of
>words strikes me as unusually (and completely unnecessarily) aggressive.
>Although I'll be heading out in a few hours for another business trip
>lasting several days, I feel I should respond briefly in view of your
>peremptory tone and the scope of our demands.
>To avoid misunderstandings, let me begin by summarising the contents of
>your each other posting in my own words:
>You assume that any application not previously coordinated with your
>organisation - in your view the most important representative of the
>Spanish ISP industry - must be devoid of any legitimacy. You further
>presume that those who signed the application did so with the intention of
>staging a coup to take over the ISP constituency and excluding other ISP
>representatives from the constituency.
>Frankly, I find this statement surprising for a number of reasons.
>First, I am familiar with a number of Spanish associations which claim to
>represent the ISP industry. I feel this is the wrong time and place to
>discuss this question at length, so I would prefer to note diplomatically
>that when we embarked on preparations for the European Internet Service
>Providers Association just under two years ago, we found that Spain was the
>most difficult country of all when it came to analysing the structure of
>its associations. I have looked back over the long list of e-mails from
>that period, and after reviewing only a few I see half a dozen associations
>presented to us as the legitimate Spanish representative, including Sedisi,
>Astel, Anprotel, Asimelec and AUI. In addition to these, an "ISPA Spain"
>was formed during our discussions with our Spanish colleagues. At the time
>we were involved in intensive discussions which led to ANRPOTEL joining
>EuroISPA. Subsequently - with the exception of the newly-formed
>ISPA-association and a few individuals - we never heard from anybody
>claiming that the Spanish ISP industry was not adequately represented. I am
>surprised that you have now done so, particularly in this manner.
>I find it even more surprising that you have now chosen to go public for
>the first time in the context of the formation of ICANN and DNSO, and to
>question everything that has been done so far. I certainly do not recall
>seeing you at any of the innumerable meetings during the last two years. If
>you did attend a conference organised by IANA, IFWP, ICANN or one of the
>DNSO meetings in Barcelona (the Catalonians may take it amiss, but for a
>foreign this is a part of Spain!), Monterey or Washington, then I must have
>missed you. However, I cannot imagine that you could have missed me, as I
>was a frequent contributor to the debate.
>In these circumstances, there was no reason for me or any of the others I
>have spoken to (including the ten European associations which are EuroISPA
>members) to contact you. Having said this, we have involved all those who
>have made a name for themselves at association level of the past few months
>and years, along with the representatives of ISPs and TelCos who have
>distinguished themselves by their efforts in the course of the formation of
>DNSO. If you look at the list of signatories, you will see (if you are at
>all familiar with the scene) that they are not exactly lightweights.
>Even if I were to agree - and I would be perfectly prepared to do so - that
>you represent the Spanish ISP industry as a whole, and that you are
>prepared to play a significant role at the international level now that you
>have taken note of the evolution at DNSO, I must ask why you have chosen to
>take such an undiplomatic position in your first appearance on the
>international stage? Instead of pounding the table unnecessarily, I would
>have strongly suggested that you should have read our application through
>at leisure before attacking it. Had you done so, you would have seen the
>note in the introduction that "in the view of the undersigned, this
>document will until its ratification by the ICANN Board remain the basis
>for further discussion and revisions".
>Under the circumstances, I would ask you to reconsider your general "no"
>and submit constructive criticisms with concrete suggestions for future
>wording, which we can then discuss - naturally, with your participation.
> | Michael Schneider Chairman, eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. |
> | President, European Internet Service Providers |
> | Association |
> | Chairman, Complaint Commission of the German |
> | Multimedia-Service-Providers Hotline |
> | c/o Schneider & Schollmeyer Law Firm, Phone: +49 2242 9270-0 |
> | Dickstrasse 35, D-53773 Hennef Michael.Schneider@Anwalt.DE |