[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Dnso] Re: reply to Schneider
Dear Mr Hurtado,
At 18:14 11.05.99 +0200, Manuel Hurtado wrote:
> Thank you for your comments to my last e-mail to discuss-dnso. I hope that
> you will have the time to read this new one betewn your trips
Although my schedule is currently very crowded, I naturally try to answer my
e-mail as quickly as possible.
> and that you will have the chance to verify your information before to make
> free comments in public.
In threads like this you always have to decide whether to let a discussion
simply run until you can cover every detail with everybody who might have
something to say, or whether to reply spontaneously. The latter stragegy can
result in a reply which isn't perfect in every respect. However, the fist
approach involves the greater danger that a discussion can get out of hand, and
you lay yourself open to the accusation of stonewalling.
In this case, I take your suggestion and the criticism it contains very
seriously, and I will accordingly refrain from further public statements about
the aspects not directly relating to the DNSO and the formation of the ISP
constituencies. I would, however, invite you to discuss the matter with a more
restricted forum, namely the EuroISPA Council. The Council has members (mostly
the Chairmen or CEOs) of all ten member associations, and I have taken the
liberty of forward your postings and mine. I have also asked the Spanish
representative from ANPROTEL to express his views.
> First of all, I can not understand why is your answer so agressive including
> personal attacks, comments about our country, questions about ASIMELEC
> representativity, and about my manners???
The style and scope of your original posting seemed to me to require a plain
answer. However, I intended no personal attack, and I most certainly would not
question the representative nature of your association (indeed, I do not see
that my comments can be read in this way).
Nevertheless, you will appreciate that as President of a pan-European
association like EuroISPA I cannot simply disavow one of our member
associations. If we do have a problem in Spain, it must be sorted out together
with our current member there and the association which believes itself to be
more representative, in an appropriate manner and without unnecessary
publicity. I have suggested above how this can be done.
> -You and me we have met twice. Both times in Brussels, the last one at the
> ICANN meeting. By the way, I remember you and your organisation not
> supporting ICANN at all at that time.
I feel that we never gave ground for any serious doubt of our attitude to
ICANN, but since you raise this question I should like to repeat our position:
1. We were not satisfied in every respect and with every detail of the
procedure leading up to the formation of ICANN. The same can be said, in fact,
for all international ISP associations. However, I am sporting enough to admit
that many of our concerns have - although still being valid - become obsolete
over the course of time. As ICANN is now an established fact, we are
cooperating constructively on developing its structure on the basis of the
present Articles and Bylaws so that it will in future meet the needs of the
ISPs even better.
2. Our desire to improve ICANN includes constructive criticism. I have the
impression that we all - including those we have argued about individual points
with in the past months - will accept that we have been frank but fair in our
dealings. I myself attached great importance to maintaining a courteous and
fair tone in a period of hectic debate, conducted by some participants with a
> -ASIMELEC, as you should know, is the most, please note this again, the most
> important ISP Assoc. in Spain, representing close to a 90% of the Internet
> traffic in Spain. This is a truth that should not be under your personal
I would not dream of interpreting anything. I can only repeat what I said
earlier: For EuroISPA, Spain was a very difficult and unclear situation. A
number of your fellow countrymen presented a very different picture with great
conviction. If we took the wrong decision then, the Council is perfectly
prepared to discuss this. However, as I said, we will not do so in public.
In any event, I feel that all this is ultimately immaterial, as you are
perfectly free to join DNSO's ISP constituency if you believe that EuroISPA is
not able to speak for Spain.
> -We never had an answer to my e-mail to you, asking you kindly about
> information for the procces of the ISP-DNSO constituency.
If I remember correctly, your e-mail was sent shortly before your public
posting to me. In any case, it reached me at the same time, due to my absence
on business. As you repeated in the public posting everything that you had said
in the private message (and more), I frankly saw no need to reply twice.
> -We do not assume, as you said, that an application not previously
> coordinated with us is without any legimay. We are not so pretentious. We
> only assume that the Constituency has to be OPEN and TRASPARENT as it is the
> only way to avoid UNDEMOCRATIC procedures and OLIGARCHY.
No need to shout ;-) I agree with you entirely. However, democracy also means
not simply voting "no", but contributing constructive counterproposals. I am
still waiting to hear from you in this respect.
My suggestion is accordingly that we should discuss the question and avoid
burdening the others on this list with personal wrangling.
| 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 |