[From nobody Sun Oct 18 04:00:08 2026 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:27:19 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan@isoc.org> To: Olivier MJ =?utf-8?Q?Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?= <ocl@gih.com> Cc: ISOC England <contact@isoc-e.org> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for ISOC CEO and ISOC UK England Leadership Team meeting - 20 Feb 2024 Message-ID: <elk6htqh7jnupmlzetwgmnxdao7miwgs4xpfj72mh3zhiddykv@z4jw7ihslxwc> References: <d6daa80d-11ae-4ff9-a30d-313058d490ad@gih.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <d6daa80d-11ae-4ff9-a30d-313058d490ad@gih.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi, Thanks again for our meeting in London. I've tried to reply inline below. = Assuming you have no additional follow up questions, I'd like to provide t= hese answers to the chapter-delegates list as well (as requested). Apologies; I didn't have time to write a short email, so I wrote a long one= instead. On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:20:15PM +0100, Olivier MJ Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond wr= ote: >Topic 1: CEO renewal As discussed before, this topic appears really to be one best addressed by = the board, so I'm setting it aside. >Topic 2: Internet Society Foundation > >ISOC's intentions on formation of the Foundation was to establish a=20 >separate Board and governance for the Foundation. It was proposed that=20 >the current arrangement of ISOC trustees also all being Foundation=20 >Trustees as only viable as a stop gap. The evolution of the governance=20 >of the Foundation appears to have stalled since the attempted sale of=20 >PIR. > >Given that the current arrangement causes a serious conflict of=20 >interest between the organisations: As I said before and emphasized in our meeting, I'm not in a position to di= scuss the governance of the Foundation. I can't even comment on the plans = that were in place at the Foundation's start, since I didn't work for the I= nternet Society then and was not privy to the discussion. I tried to lay out the way in which it was not possible for the Foundation = and the Internet Society to be in a real conflict, because the Foundation i= s a supporting organization of the Internet Society and therefore a kind of= instrument that can be used to pursue the mission of the Internet Society = itself. The Foundation includes the philanthropy staff, and they are professionals = who are expert in grant-making and in designing and administering grant pro= grams. This is all now done though our Fluxx platform, which gives a consi= stent interface for grant application and also provides the staff and board= with long-term data that can be used as part of the evaluation and potenti= al refinement of funding programs. The Foundation may not itself be the source of all money; who administers t= he grants is not necessarily who pays for them. In the case of chapters, i= n particular, there are some difficulties in having the Foundation send mon= ey because not every chapter can qualify as a 501(c)(3). The Foundation is= only allowed to fund 501(c)(3) organizations (and their equivalents) under= US tax law, because it is organized to support a charity (the Internet Soc= iety). The Internet Society uses mechanisms like this supporting organizat= ion approach in order to enable operational advantages under US nonprofit t= ax law. Some chapters have benefitted from the Beyond the Net grant program and dev= eloped stronger grant administration skills, and then become able to apply = for other grant programs offered both by the Internet Society and Foundatio= n, and by other funders. I didn't have this number when we met, but the un= audited value of all the grants and support sent to chapters in 2023 was ne= arly $ 1.5 million. >Topic 3: ISOC's future > >It is notable that in relation to other Internet organisations=20 >referred to as I* including IETF, ICANN, IAB, Regional Internet=20 >Registries. ISOC alone today has no operational responsibilities for=20 >Internet resources, networks, or governance communities. This has=20 >frequently led to comments by operators in those communities to ask=20 >"What is the point of ISOC"? > >3.1 What is the Point of ISOC today and into the next five years in=20 >the CEO's view? Unlike every other so-called I* organization, the Internet Society has neve= r had a direct role in operational responsbilities. It is true that for ma= ny years, the Internet Society formally had the responsibilities of the IET= F and the IAB, but this was really just an accident of the organizational a= rrangements. With the creation of the IETF Administration LLC, the contrac= tual arrangements are a little different (though it is worth noting that th= e IETF Administration LLC remains a part of the Internet Society, that the = IAB remains an advisory committee to the Internet Society Board of Trustees= , and that 1/3 of the board is still appointed by the IETF through the IAB)= . So, what is the point of the Internet Society? Well, look around at the wo= rld. When most of us first got access to the Internet, everyone who knew a= bout it thought it was a good idea. Now there are a lot of people who doub= t that. The Internet needs a voice, and the Internet Society strives to be= it. Internet shutdowns have increased (hence our investment in tools like= Pulse). Attacks on the Internet are rising (hence our work in 2024 on a fr= amework for regulatory actions on intermediary liability as well as specifi= c attention to the UN in the run-up to WSIS+20). We have created framework= s for thinking about this, which is why we created the Internet Impact Asse= ssment toolkit, and why we keep investing in training and education for pol= icy makers as well as the next generation of Internet leaders. If you look= through our activities, at least half of them (and I'd argue all of them) = are efforts to be advocates for the Internet and its way of connecting us a= ll -- a way that has turned out to be cheaper, more resilient, and more fle= xible than other traditional network designs! One particular topic of discussion we had was around the direct discussion = of "multi-stakeholder" and its cognates. Part of the reason you don't hear= us beating that drum so much is because the term has become so elastic as = to carry, in my opinion, little meaning. When authoritarian governments an= d the largest corporations in the history of corporations can both claim th= e mantle of "multi-stakeholderism," we have an abstraction that is no longe= r fit for purpose. We need to concentrate on what we want. What we want i= s an Internet that is for everyone, and not some set of special privileged = interests. That is, all the time, our focus. >3.1.1 Is there a 5 year strategic plan in place? Yes. We're coming to the end of one, and starting a new one over the next = 12 months; that new one is one that I know the board undertook extensive co= nsultations with the community about. The staff are working now to put in = place the necessary documents to share with the community about how we inte= nd to implement the board's direction, and the new materials will be announ= ced as soon as the board has accepted them and they're ready for posting. > >3.2 2024 Action Plan >https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-Action-Pla= n-EN.pdf > >Focussing on two topics: >3.2.1 countering Internet threats >3.2.1.1 What kind of threats are in the cross-wires of this action=20 >item? Threats from UN? Globally? Individual Governments (at national=20 >level)? Regionally (for example European Commission)? Private Sector=20 >(for example Network Neutrality or consolidation of Internet resources=20 >and monopolies)? There number of threats to the Internet are numerous. Yes, all of these things. It's tough for such a small organization! This = is why you see us trying to raise more funds, so that we're in a position t= o counter as much as possible. The people who don't like the Internet are = nation states who can literally print money, and some of the best-capitaliz= ed and best-funded corporations and political organizations in the history = of capital. Our army of staff and volunteers is mighty, for sure, but stil= l too few and too small to win in this battle. >3.2.1.2 At what "layer" are these threats mostly going to be? I am extremely sceptical of the "layer" model. It is intuitive and simple, = but it's wrong, since every layer can be encapsulated in any other layer. = It was a tempting simplification and it was early on useful to engage polic= ymakers. But I think we're living with a hangover from this idea, because = the policymakers decided that there had to be a layer where they could inse= rt themselves. There isn't. The threats happen at every layer, which is w= hy we see everything from literal shutdowns (basically, the elimination of = the physical layer), through interference with Transport Layer Security, al= l the way up to attacks on protocols in the application layer. All of thes= e can endanger the ability of the Internet to be for everyone. >3.2.1.3 How are these threats going to be decided? Which threat is=20 >"more important"? Which threat has priority? It's hard to answer this in the abstract. "The one that can do the most da= mage," is hardly a satisfying answer, but it is mostly the one I think is r= ight. We usually have to take these things case by case. Part of our adva= ntage is that the same bad ideas come up over and over again, so we are oft= en able to re-use tactics that worked in one place and take them to another= . >3.2.2 defending the Internet in the UN. >This outward facing element of ISOC's advocacy has been missing in the=20 >past and it would be good to understand what this will comprise,=20 >particularly w/r/t IG. >Could you please elaborate on what processes will be followed? IGF?=20 >WSIS? UNGA (with the UN Digital Cooperation Forum)? ECOSOC? UNESCO? These are all places we've been engaged with for the entire time I've been = CEO, but given the number of things going on at the UN these days we've tri= ed to highlight it in the 2024 agenda. One thing that people don't always = realize is that not everything the staff do is something we do in the wide = open. There are plenty of cases where the best strategy is to advocate qui= etly behind the scenes, and not make a fuss. It feels good sometimes to be= lobbing insults or worse from outside, but if one can be polite and get in= to the room sometimes one gets a better outcome. I do think staff don't ge= t enough public credit for this part of their work, but there's effectively= no way to make a public deal about this without disclosing the very thing = we were successful in not disclosing before! >3.2.3 Is ISOC planning to reinvigorate the I* and working with the=20 >Internet technical community as a whole to mitigate these challenges? As I said in our meeting, I don't understand the idea that we have some sor= t of problem there. We have very good, regular contact among our staff and= the staff of all of these other organizations. What is true is that we ha= ve had way fewer "I* CEO" meetings. That's because there isn't some simple= , clear, joint challenge that we are all facing at the moment that needs a = CEO-level discussion. The last one of those was the IANA transition. Many= of the challenges that we (the Internet Society) see for the Internet, for= instance, may not have any implications for (say) an RIR or ICANN. Domain= names and IP addresses are likely to be needed for a long time even if the= Internet ends up fragmented in various policy-driven ways across geographi= es, or gets completely controlled by a tiny oligarchy of interests. >3.3 ISOC Financials >https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/organization-report= s/#financial-reports >2022 Financial Statements show the Internet Society making a loss for=20 >that year. Yes, due overwhelmingly to financial losses in the markets. Our (as yet un= audited) 2023 statements will show essentially all of it returning. You ma= y recall that 2022 was devastating in most public markets. >3.3.1 Is there oversight and reporting that is specific to keeping=20 >track of the proportion of .org revenues being spent on internal=20 >administration and staff compared to funding community works? >The annual financial statements do not show this. [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the meeting] No, because .org revenues do not get sent only to the Internet Society. We= do track over all revenue and "Internet Society generated" revenue in orde= r to give a good picture of just how dominant one part of our income is. W= e are working hard to diversify our revenue streams. >3.3.2 With other I* organisations providing detailed information about=20 >the management of their projects as well as per department=20 >cross-referencing, is ISOC prepared to rise up to the levels of=20 >transparency that are now expected in public benefit entities and to=20 >produce an annual financial report that provides more information than=20 >its minimal published financial statement? [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the meeting] It isn't clear to me exactly what is being requested here, but unless I'm v= ery much mistaken I think you're asking for a board policy change about wha= t is to be disclosed. Ultimately, such a policy change would have to be ad= opted by the board, so I suggest you need to take that question up with the= m. I will note that our reporting is getting better in part because we have mo= re infrastructure to do it. I expect that will get still better over time.= But we do still have some deficiencies in our reporting infrastructure. = I would rather invest in making that infrastructure better than pay someone= to produce such reports by hand, given our resource limitations. >3.3.3 Is ISOC ready to publish its financials on multi-year projects=20 >including its forecasts going forward? Scrutiny of Form 990 appears to=20 >show random continuity year on year and there is no way to find out=20 >what is happening? I think this is also a question that needs to be directed to the board (or = maybe more exactly, the finance committee; but the board is the right place= to start). >3.4 MANRS >ISOC made a total divestment of its MANRS project to a US=20 >not-for-profit, The Global Cyber Alliance (GCA) which has foundational=20 >links to the City Police in UK and other similar agencies. "Divestment" (and cognates in what follows) is an inaccurate description of= what has happened. The Internet Society has not been (historically) terri= bly good at running long-term operations, but it is quite good at incubatin= g efforts and making them successful. That's what we did in this case, and= we are providing more than $5 million over 5 years to ensure that MANRS co= ntinues to be successful as it turns into a long-term operation. GCA did have the City Police participating in its founding, but the City Po= lice are no longer involved. >3.4.1 Why was this divestiture effected given that this was a=20 >successful project which comforted the ISOC brand as being pertinent? See above. >3.4.2 Was a risk assessment done prior to moving MANRS elsewhere to an=20 >organisation so close to law enforcement as to ensuring that the=20 >Internet Society goals and principles in this important area remain at=20 >the top of the routing security agenda? We do not believe GCA is especially close to law enforcement. >3.4.3 By what criteria was the GCA chosen as an suitable organisation=20 >to run the MANRS project? Were there conditions imposed on Goals? [=E2=80=A6] >3.4.4 Are there Performance Agreements (SLAs) in place for the ongoing=20 >conditional funding of the GCA? [=E2=80=A6] >3.4.4.1 If yes, are there clauses to cancel the GCA Secretarial and=20 >Operational duties, should it fail in its SLAs? It is a participant in this work, and it is designed to do the kind of long= -term operational work that we are not able to do. Of course, our grant to= GCA, just as any grant we make, contains performance and reporting require= ments that mean the grant will be rescinded if the performance and reportin= g do not happen. >3.5 Concept of the Internet Society holding network related patents > >In a recent conversation on the Internet History Mailing List, Karl=20 >Auerbach proposed that ISOC or the IETF established an arm that could=20 >accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for=20 >reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms). Vint Cerf replied=20 >that he liked the idea and that the concept of ISOC being compensated=20 >for doing so could ease its challenge demonstrating the level of=20 >public support it has (the so-called IRS Public Support Test) that=20 >requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income comes from a broad=20 >range of public sources. >Would you consider this as a potential responsibility to evolve ISOC? This would present an enormous litigation risk to the Internet Society. Pa= tent pools are a great lawsuit target for "patent trolls". (I didn't menti= on this in our meeting, but it also isn't clear to me how this would be com= patible with our IRS charitable purpose, so we'd have to investigate that i= f it seemed at all a plausible way forward.) >Topic 4: Operational Issues [we were unable to get to most of this topic in person, so I'm going to res= pond to the best of my ability here.] >4.1 New Chapter Membership Administration System > >After more than one month in existence it is clear that the new=20 >Chapter Membership Administration System is failing to achieve the=20 >functions it was meant to achieve: >a. emailing members >b. hosting fora for community discussions like the Chapter Advisory=20 >Council discussions and other fora There clearly have been some ways in which the system has not been ideal, b= ut I think we have seen some responses on the chapter-delegates mailing lis= t of how things can be working. Please do continue to open tickets in the = dedicated implementation queue, "AMSHelp@isoc.org". Thanks. It is important, also, that chapters use the functionality that exists. Ea= ch chapter can appoint up to two communication officers who manage the one-= way communication via email. This assignment isn't automated, so it's some= thing you have to do. The fora you're thinking of have been converted into Chatter groups. You c= an post via email, and it is also possible to received each message as it i= s posted rather like a traditional email listserv. There are still some wa= ys this functionality does not work quite the way people used to mailing li= sts expect, I will note. But we also have heard many complaints over time = about our reliance on mailing lists: for lots of people, email is a legacy = system they don't like to use. >To-date the failure of the emailing system is such that even ISOC=20 >Staff have been unable to use it for any campaign whatsoever. I don't believe this is actually correct. The Internet Society staff have = been communicating with the community since the launch in December through = this platform. I understand that there may have been some deficiencies in how SPF or DKIM = or both were configured. =20 >The discussion fora are completely empty. I also don't believe this is correct, though it is possible that the ones y= ou attend to are in fact empty. There is definitely a difference in the fu= nctionality of the Chatter groups and the old fora. We are attempting to r= efine that experience. > The porting of old=20 >discussions has lost all formatting, attached documents etc. It is definitely the case that some old formatting was lost: the Connect pl= atform allowed HTML-tagged formatting and the new one doesn't. In consulta= tion with the chapters who participated in the focus groups around this tra= nsition, we decided to accept this limitation. Also, it was only the forme= r Connect data that was migrated to the new system: anything that was outsi= de that necessarily stayed out. I am unaware of any content that was lost,= and this was one of the major focal points of post-migration testing, so i= f you can point to a specific case of data loss it would be very important = to hear about it urgently, please. > Functions=20 >like the emailing of the fora discussions are non existent. I think this is overstating the case, but there have been problems with the= ways email interacts with all of this. One issue is that the default was = to send batches rather than each message. We are diligently working to fin= d new problematic cases. >The system appears to require lots of pre-established templates none=20 >of which are available. You do need to template messages in advance. There are different templates= , but it's wise for each chapter to maintain their control over the templat= es they use. If there is a gap that you need help with urgently, please op= en a ticket with AMSHelp@isoc.org. Thanks. >The list of problems is too long to list here but the result is a loss=20 >of community history as well as a complete hindrance on membership=20 >management at Chapter level. ISOC is without a communications tool - a=20 >tool that should have been at the centre of its operations and that=20 >has failed to deliver. > >4.1.1 What is ISOC planning to do to fix this serious problem? We are doing monthly releases to refine and improve the platform. >4.1.2 How long will it take to fix? This depends on what we mean by "fix". There are some issues that require = more work than others, but I believe there are some fixes that have been pu= blicly requested that are for things not actually broken in the system as d= esigned, so it is hard for me to answer this fairly. In particular, there = have been some calls to revert to a state of affairs in respect of data sha= ring that we simply cannot do under various privacy laws today. While I ha= ve sympathy with those frustrated by the loss of sometimes lower-friction w= ays of doing things, we cannot leave aside our obligtions to conform with p= rivacy and anti-spam laws. There is a =E2=80=9CCommunity Portal Updates=E2=80=9D Chatter group. All i= nterested chapter leaders are invited to join that group. This will help ev= eryone understand what the monthly releases include.=20 >4.1.3 If the system is "born dead" would ISOC consider finding an=20 >alternative system and dropping the current system on the basis that=20 >it is a failure and immediately proposing an alternative? The system is not "born dead", as the success of some users has shown. Thi= s system went through an exhaustive selection process involving, among othe= rs, chapter leaders who could comment on the functionality. This is a larg= e change, however, which is always difficult. >4.2 Relationship between Chapters and HQ in matters of national importance > >4.2.1 Does ISOC have a rulebook regarding engagement relating to=20 >Internet policy and advocacy in countries where there is a local=20 >Chapter? We try always to engage in development of our positions in consultation wit= h those locally on the ground in any country we attend to. That does not a= lways mean direct engagement by the person who is visiting: it often means = that people come well-briefed with the Internet Society position. Of course= , it has happened on some occasions that the Internet Society and a chapter= in a country do not agree about something, though it is pretty rare. >4.2.2 How does ISOC align itself with the positions taken by a local=20 >chapter in a specific territory when ISOC in intervening directly in=20 >that territory? For example, your visit in the UK is triggered by your=20 >participation at a conference. How will you align your narrative with=20 >the Chapter's narrative? First, there is no actual requirement that a chapter must agree with the wi= der Internet Society (it has happened, as noted above). But in general we = try always to make sure we are well aligned. I came to the UK, for instanc= e, well-briefed ahout the topics I was likely to interact with people about= . It is not, of course, possible for any one person to meet with everyone = in every chapter. But in general we try to ensure the whole Internet Socie= ty, including the chapters, are largely aligned on these matters. That mig= ht mean that there are tiny differences in the ways we talk about certain t= hings, of course. But the richness of a choir comes from the many voices c= oming together to sing the same musical piece. Best regards, Andrew --=20 Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet Society e:sullivan@isoc.org m:+1 416 731 1261 Help protect the Internet for everyone: https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/ ]