[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Dnso] Re: A big problem with the ISP constituency

At 16:14 17.05.99 +0200, Manuel Hurtado wrote:

> We seem to be in different wavelenghts.

I see.

> What we are discussing here is not how representative EuroIspa is or is not.
> EuroIspa is an association that has members in several European countries,
> but it is very far from representing European ISPīs. As one more association,
> it has a clear right to participate in the ISP constituency, but if you
> believe that other organisations must participate in this constiruency
> through EuroIspa, you are wrong.

I don't and never did. May I quote my latest posting ? It said:

>> 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. <<

Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself.

> The problem still remains. The way the ISP constituency has been planned,
> most of us are excluded from the founding members and it is up to you to
> decide who joins and who does not.

I would not dream of doing that.

> You still do not seem to understand that the problem is open process, for
> wich you have given no opportunity to other organisations.

You had and still have the opportunity, but you're obviously still preferring
to argue about process instead of substance.

> We believe that the ISP constituency should open a comment period on its
> document and should openly ask for founding members, as other more democratic
> constituencies have done. Once all these members are on board you may start
> making rules and elections, but closing the door on everybody before time and
> them being the gatekeeper will just not work.
> Unless we see a very clear opening before Berlin, we will present another
> draft to ICANN next week, a draft for a democratic ISP constituency.

It's up to you.

> It will be as easy as  sending it to ICANN.


> We do prefer that discussions be conducted publically and in a transparent
> way.

I agree.

> Now, two very direct and public questions:
> Are the signatories of your draft prepared to open the document for a public
> comment period or not?

Of course. Please read the 1st sentence of the Intro's 2nd paragraph:

>> In the view of the undersigned, this document will until its ratification by
the ICANN Board remain the basis for further discussion and revisions. <<

> Are they prepared to accept as founding members all those who wish to be so?.

Of course (if they have a stake in the ISP business).