<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you Joly, good one! <br>
</p>
<p>WYn<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7 Mar 2024 5:44 PM, Joly MacFie via
Chapter-delegates wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM9VJk0s_wrqLx3UdNRqt68dvRjFswfupSCn7+eBrrSApDNXnw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">On the
occasion of ISOC's 20th anniversary in 2012, Vint, Bob Kahn
and Lynn St Amour made a short video that talked about its
origins</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><a
href="https://youtu.be/-BPiusFlrgc" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://youtu.be/-BPiusFlrgc</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:20 AM
32888 via Chapter-delegates <<a
href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Yes,
Vint is saying the truth, as a first ISOC chair that was set
up as <br>
organization-society in 1992 during the annual Internet
conference.<br>
<br>
History facts should be respected.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Borka, ISOC Slovenia<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, vinton cerf via Chapter-delegates wrote:<br>
<br>
> Andrew, ISOC support for IETF and IAB was the reason for
forming ISOC, not<br>
> an accident! Long after ISOC was created, the IETF chose
to create its own<br>
> foundation. <br>
> Vint<br>
> <br>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024, 08:34 Andrew Sullivan via
Chapter-delegates<br>
> <<a href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Dear colleagues,<br>
><br>
> Please see attached the responses I sent to the UK
England<br>
> chapter leaders after our meeting in London.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet
Society<br>
> <a href="mailto:e%3Asullivan@isoc.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">e:sullivan@isoc.org</a>
m:+1 416 731 1261<br>
> Help protect the Internet for everyone:<br>
> <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
> From: Andrew Sullivan <<a
href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">sullivan@isoc.org</a>><br>
> To: "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <<a
href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ocl@gih.com</a>><br>
> Cc: ISOC England <<a
href="mailto:contact@isoc-e.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">contact@isoc-e.org</a>><br>
> Bcc: <br>
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:27:19 -0500<br>
> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for ISOC CEO and ISOC
UK England<br>
> Leadership Team meeting - 20 Feb 2024<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Thanks again for our meeting in London. I've tried
to reply<br>
> inline below. Assuming you have no additional
follow up<br>
> questions, I'd like to provide these answers to the<br>
> chapter-delegates list as well (as requested).<br>
><br>
> Apologies; I didn't have time to write a short
email, so I wrote<br>
> a long one instead.<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:20:15PM +0100, Olivier
MJ<br>
> Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
><br>
> >Topic 1: CEO renewal<br>
><br>
> As discussed before, this topic appears really to
be one best<br>
> addressed by the board, so I'm setting it aside.<br>
><br>
> >Topic 2: Internet Society Foundation<br>
> ><br>
> >ISOC's intentions on formation of the
Foundation was to<br>
> establish a<br>
> >separate Board and governance for the
Foundation. It was<br>
> proposed that<br>
> >the current arrangement of ISOC trustees also
all being<br>
> Foundation<br>
> >Trustees as only viable as a stop gap. The
evolution of the<br>
> governance<br>
> >of the Foundation appears to have stalled since
the attempted<br>
> sale of<br>
> >PIR.<br>
> ><br>
> >Given that the current arrangement causes a
serious conflict of<br>
> >interest between the organisations:<br>
><br>
> As I said before and emphasized in our meeting, I'm
not in a<br>
> position to discuss the governance of the
Foundation. I can't<br>
> even comment on the plans that were in place at the
Foundation's<br>
> start, since I didn't work for the Internet Society
then and was<br>
> not privy to the discussion.<br>
><br>
> I tried to lay out the way in which it was not
possible for the<br>
> Foundation and the Internet Society to be in a real
conflict,<br>
> because the Foundation is a supporting organization
of the<br>
> Internet Society and therefore a kind of instrument
that can be<br>
> used to pursue the mission of the Internet Society
itself.<br>
><br>
> The Foundation includes the philanthropy staff, and
they are<br>
> professionals who are expert in grant-making and in
designing<br>
> and administering grant programs. This is all now
done though<br>
> our Fluxx platform, which gives a consistent
interface for grant<br>
> application and also provides the staff and board
with long-term<br>
> data that can be used as part of the evaluation and
potential<br>
> refinement of funding programs.<br>
><br>
> The Foundation may not itself be the source of all
money; who<br>
> administers the grants is not necessarily who pays
for them. In<br>
> the case of chapters, in particular, there are some
difficulties<br>
> in having the Foundation send money because not
every chapter<br>
> can qualify as a 501(c)(3). The Foundation is only
allowed to<br>
> fund 501(c)(3) organizations (and their
equivalents) under US<br>
> tax law, because it is organized to support a
charity (the<br>
> Internet Society). The Internet Society uses
mechanisms like<br>
> this supporting organization approach in order to
enable<br>
> operational advantages under US nonprofit tax law.<br>
><br>
> Some chapters have benefitted from the Beyond the
Net grant<br>
> program and developed stronger grant administration
skills, and<br>
> then become able to apply for other grant programs
offered both<br>
> by the Internet Society and Foundation, and by
other funders. I<br>
> didn't have this number when we met, but the
unaudited value of<br>
> all the grants and support sent to chapters in 2023
was nearly $<br>
> 1.5 million.<br>
><br>
> >Topic 3: ISOC's future<br>
> ><br>
> >It is notable that in relation to other
Internet organisations<br>
> >referred to as I* including IETF, ICANN, IAB,
Regional Internet<br>
> >Registries. ISOC alone today has no operational<br>
> responsibilities for<br>
> >Internet resources, networks, or governance
communities. This<br>
> has<br>
> >frequently led to comments by operators in
those communities to<br>
> ask<br>
> >"What is the point of ISOC"?<br>
> ><br>
> >3.1 What is the Point of ISOC today and into
the next five<br>
> years in<br>
> >the CEO's view?<br>
><br>
> Unlike every other so-called I* organization, the
Internet<br>
> Society has never had a direct role in operational<br>
> responsbilities. It is true that for many years,
the Internet<br>
> Society formally had the responsibilities of the
IETF and the<br>
> IAB, but this was really just an accident of the
organizational<br>
> arrangements. With the creation of the IETF
Administration LLC,<br>
> the contractual arrangements are a little different
(though it<br>
> is worth noting that the IETF Administration LLC
remains a part<br>
> of the Internet Society, that the IAB remains an
advisory<br>
> committee to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees, and that<br>
> 1/3 of the board is still appointed by the IETF
through the<br>
> IAB).<br>
><br>
> So, what is the point of the Internet Society?
Well, look<br>
> around at the world. When most of us first got
access to the<br>
> Internet, everyone who knew about it thought it was
a good<br>
> idea. Now there are a lot of people who doubt
that. The<br>
> Internet needs a voice, and the Internet Society
strives to be<br>
> it. Internet shutdowns have increased (hence our
investment in<br>
> tools like Pulse). Attacks on the Internet are
rising (hence our<br>
> work in 2024 on a framework for regulatory actions
on<br>
> intermediary liability as well as specific
attention to the UN<br>
> in the run-up to WSIS+20). We have created
frameworks for<br>
> thinking about this, which is why we created the
Internet Impact<br>
> Assessment toolkit, and why we keep investing in
training and<br>
> education for policy makers as well as the next
generation of<br>
> Internet leaders. If you look through our
activities, at least<br>
> half of them (and I'd argue all of them) are
efforts to be<br>
> advocates for the Internet and its way of
connecting us all -- a<br>
> way that has turned out to be cheaper, more
resilient, and more<br>
> flexible than other traditional network designs!<br>
><br>
> One particular topic of discussion we had was
around the direct<br>
> discussion of "multi-stakeholder" and its
cognates. Part of the<br>
> reason you don't hear us beating that drum so much
is because<br>
> the term has become so elastic as to carry, in my
opinion,<br>
> little meaning. When authoritarian governments and
the largest<br>
> corporations in the history of corporations can
both claim the<br>
> mantle of "multi-stakeholderism," we have an
abstraction that is<br>
> no longer fit for purpose. We need to concentrate
on what we<br>
> want. What we want is an Internet that is for
everyone, and not<br>
> some set of special privileged interests. That is,
all the<br>
> time, our focus.<br>
><br>
> >3.1.1 Is there a 5 year strategic plan in
place?<br>
><br>
> Yes. We're coming to the end of one, and starting
a new one<br>
> over the next 12 months; that new one is one that I
know the<br>
> board undertook extensive consultations with the
community<br>
> about. The staff are working now to put in place
the necessary<br>
> documents to share with the community about how we
intend to<br>
> implement the board's direction, and the new
materials will be<br>
> announced as soon as the board has accepted them
and they're<br>
> ready for posting.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> >3.2 2024 Action Plan<br>
> ><a
href="https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-Action-Pla"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-Action-Pla</a><br>
> n-EN.pdf<br>
> ><br>
> >Focussing on two topics:<br>
> >3.2.1 countering Internet threats<br>
> >3.2.1.1 What kind of threats are in the
cross-wires of this<br>
> action<br>
> >item? Threats from UN? Globally? Individual
Governments (at<br>
> national<br>
> >level)? Regionally (for example European
Commission)? Private<br>
> Sector<br>
> >(for example Network Neutrality or
consolidation of Internet<br>
> resources<br>
> >and monopolies)? There number of threats to the
Internet are<br>
> numerous.<br>
><br>
> Yes, all of these things. It's tough for such a
small<br>
> organization! This is why you see us trying to
raise more<br>
> funds, so that we're in a position to counter as
much as<br>
> possible. The people who don't like the Internet
are nation<br>
> states who can literally print money, and some of
the<br>
> best-capitalized and best-funded corporations and
political<br>
> organizations in the history of capital. Our army
of staff and<br>
> volunteers is mighty, for sure, but still too few
and too small<br>
> to win in this battle.<br>
><br>
> >3.2.1.2 At what "layer" are these threats
mostly going to be?<br>
><br>
> I am extremely sceptical of the "layer" model. It
is intuitive<br>
> and simple, but it's wrong, since every layer can
be<br>
> encapsulated in any other layer. It was a tempting<br>
> simplification and it was early on useful to engage<br>
> policymakers. But I think we're living with a
hangover from<br>
> this idea, because the policymakers decided that
there had to be<br>
> a layer where they could insert themselves. There
isn't. The<br>
> threats happen at every layer, which is why we see
everything<br>
> from literal shutdowns (basically, the elimination
of the<br>
> physical layer), through interference with
Transport Layer<br>
> Security, all the way up to attacks on protocols in
the<br>
> application layer. All of these can endanger the
ability of the<br>
> Internet to be for everyone.<br>
><br>
> >3.2.1.3 How are these threats going to be
decided? Which threat<br>
> is<br>
> >"more important"? Which threat has priority?<br>
><br>
> It's hard to answer this in the abstract. "The one
that can do<br>
> the most damage," is hardly a satisfying answer,
but it is<br>
> mostly the one I think is right. We usually have
to take these<br>
> things case by case. Part of our advantage is that
the same bad<br>
> ideas come up over and over again, so we are often
able to<br>
> re-use tactics that worked in one place and take
them to<br>
> another.<br>
><br>
> >3.2.2 defending the Internet in the UN.<br>
> >This outward facing element of ISOC's advocacy
has been missing<br>
> in the<br>
> >past and it would be good to understand what
this will<br>
> comprise,<br>
> >particularly w/r/t IG.<br>
> >Could you please elaborate on what processes
will be followed?<br>
> IGF?<br>
> >WSIS? UNGA (with the UN Digital Cooperation
Forum)? ECOSOC?<br>
> UNESCO?<br>
><br>
> These are all places we've been engaged with for
the entire time<br>
> I've been CEO, but given the number of things going
on at the UN<br>
> these days we've tried to highlight it in the 2024
agenda. One<br>
> thing that people don't always realize is that not
everything<br>
> the staff do is something we do in the wide open.
There are<br>
> plenty of cases where the best strategy is to
advocate quietly<br>
> behind the scenes, and not make a fuss. It feels
good sometimes<br>
> to be lobbing insults or worse from outside, but if
one can be<br>
> polite and get into the room sometimes one gets a
better<br>
> outcome. I do think staff don't get enough public
credit for<br>
> this part of their work, but there's effectively no
way to make<br>
> a public deal about this without disclosing the
very thing we<br>
> were successful in not disclosing before!<br>
><br>
> >3.2.3 Is ISOC planning to reinvigorate the I*
and working with<br>
> the<br>
> >Internet technical community as a whole to
mitigate these<br>
> challenges?<br>
><br>
> As I said in our meeting, I don't understand the
idea that we<br>
> have some sort of problem there. We have very
good, regular<br>
> contact among our staff and the staff of all of
these other<br>
> organizations. What is true is that we have had
way fewer "I*<br>
> CEO" meetings. That's because there isn't some
simple, clear,<br>
> joint challenge that we are all facing at the
moment that needs<br>
> a CEO-level discussion. The last one of those was
the IANA<br>
> transition. Many of the challenges that we (the
Internet<br>
> Society) see for the Internet, for instance, may
not have any<br>
> implications for (say) an RIR or ICANN. Domain
names and IP<br>
> addresses are likely to be needed for a long time
even if the<br>
> Internet ends up fragmented in various
policy-driven ways across<br>
> geographies, or gets completely controlled by a
tiny oligarchy<br>
> of interests.<br>
><br>
> >3.3 ISOC Financials<br>
> ><a
href="https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/organization-report"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/organization-report</a><br>
> s/#financial-reports<br>
> >2022 Financial Statements show the Internet
Society making a<br>
> loss for<br>
> >that year.<br>
><br>
> Yes, due overwhelmingly to financial losses in the
markets. Our<br>
> (as yet unaudited) 2023 statements will show
essentially all of<br>
> it returning. You may recall that 2022 was
devastating in most<br>
> public markets.<br>
><br>
> >3.3.1 Is there oversight and reporting that is
specific to<br>
> keeping<br>
> >track of the proportion of .org revenues being
spent on<br>
> internal<br>
> >administration and staff compared to funding
community works?<br>
> >The annual financial statements do not show
this.<br>
><br>
> [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the
meeting]<br>
><br>
> No, because .org revenues do not get sent only to
the Internet<br>
> Society. We do track over all revenue and
"Internet Society<br>
> generated" revenue in order to give a good picture
of just how<br>
> dominant one part of our income is. We are working
hard to<br>
> diversify our revenue streams.<br>
><br>
> >3.3.2 With other I* organisations providing
detailed<br>
> information about<br>
> >the management of their projects as well as per
department<br>
> >cross-referencing, is ISOC prepared to rise up
to the levels of<br>
> >transparency that are now expected in public
benefit entities<br>
> and to<br>
> >produce an annual financial report that
provides more<br>
> information than<br>
> >its minimal published financial statement?<br>
><br>
> [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the
meeting]<br>
><br>
> It isn't clear to me exactly what is being
requested here, but<br>
> unless I'm very much mistaken I think you're asking
for a board<br>
> policy change about what is to be disclosed.
Ultimately, such a<br>
> policy change would have to be adopted by the
board, so I<br>
> suggest you need to take that question up with
them.<br>
><br>
> I will note that our reporting is getting better in
part because<br>
> we have more infrastructure to do it. I expect
that will get<br>
> still better over time. But we do still have some
deficiencies<br>
> in our reporting infrastructure. I would rather
invest in<br>
> making that infrastructure better than pay someone
to produce<br>
> such reports by hand, given our resource
limitations.<br>
><br>
> >3.3.3 Is ISOC ready to publish its financials
on multi-year<br>
> projects<br>
> >including its forecasts going forward? Scrutiny
of Form 990<br>
> appears to<br>
> >show random continuity year on year and there
is no way to find<br>
> out<br>
> >what is happening?<br>
><br>
> I think this is also a question that needs to be
directed to the<br>
> board (or maybe more exactly, the finance
committee; but the<br>
> board is the right place to start).<br>
><br>
> >3.4 MANRS<br>
> >ISOC made a total divestment of its MANRS
project to a US<br>
> >not-for-profit, The Global Cyber Alliance (GCA)
which has<br>
> foundational<br>
> >links to the City Police in UK and other
similar agencies.<br>
><br>
> "Divestment" (and cognates in what follows) is an
inaccurate<br>
> description of what has happened. The Internet
Society has not<br>
> been (historically) terribly good at running
long-term<br>
> operations, but it is quite good at incubating
efforts and<br>
> making them successful. That's what we did in this
case, and we<br>
> are providing more than $5 million over 5 years to
ensure that<br>
> MANRS continues to be successful as it turns into a
long-term<br>
> operation.<br>
><br>
> GCA did have the City Police participating in its
founding, but<br>
> the City Police are no longer involved.<br>
><br>
> >3.4.1 Why was this divestiture effected given
that this was a<br>
> >successful project which comforted the ISOC
brand as being<br>
> pertinent?<br>
><br>
> See above.<br>
><br>
> >3.4.2 Was a risk assessment done prior to
moving MANRS<br>
> elsewhere to an<br>
> >organisation so close to law enforcement as to
ensuring that<br>
> the<br>
> >Internet Society goals and principles in this
important area<br>
> remain at<br>
> >the top of the routing security agenda?<br>
><br>
> We do not believe GCA is especially close to law
enforcement.<br>
><br>
> >3.4.3 By what criteria was the GCA chosen as an
suitable<br>
> organisation<br>
> >to run the MANRS project? Were there conditions
imposed on<br>
> Goals?<br>
> […]<br>
> >3.4.4 Are there Performance Agreements (SLAs)
in place for the<br>
> ongoing<br>
> >conditional funding of the GCA?<br>
> […]<br>
> >3.4.4.1 If yes, are there clauses to cancel the
GCA Secretarial<br>
> and<br>
> >Operational duties, should it fail in its SLAs?<br>
><br>
> It is a participant in this work, and it is
designed to do the<br>
> kind of long-term operational work that we are not
able to do. <br>
> Of course, our grant to GCA, just as any grant we
make, contains<br>
> performance and reporting requirements that mean
the grant will<br>
> be rescinded if the performance and reporting do
not happen.<br>
><br>
> >3.5 Concept of the Internet Society holding
network related<br>
> patents<br>
> ><br>
> >In a recent conversation on the Internet
History Mailing List,<br>
> Karl<br>
> >Auerbach proposed that ISOC or the IETF
established an arm that<br>
> could<br>
> >accept and hold network related patents and
issue licenses (for<br>
> >reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory
terms). Vint Cerf<br>
> replied<br>
> >that he liked the idea and that the concept of
ISOC being<br>
> compensated<br>
> >for doing so could ease its challenge
demonstrating the level<br>
> of<br>
> >public support it has (the so-called IRS Public
Support Test)<br>
> that<br>
> >requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its
income comes from<br>
> a broad<br>
> >range of public sources.<br>
> >Would you consider this as a potential
responsibility to evolve<br>
> ISOC?<br>
><br>
> This would present an enormous litigation risk to
the Internet<br>
> Society. Patent pools are a great lawsuit target
for "patent<br>
> trolls". (I didn't mention this in our meeting,
but it also<br>
> isn't clear to me how this would be compatible with
our IRS<br>
> charitable purpose, so we'd have to investigate
that if it<br>
> seemed at all a plausible way forward.)<br>
><br>
> >Topic 4: Operational Issues<br>
><br>
> [we were unable to get to most of this topic in
person, so I'm<br>
> going to respond to the best of my ability here.]<br>
><br>
> >4.1 New Chapter Membership Administration
System<br>
> ><br>
> >After more than one month in existence it is
clear that the new<br>
> >Chapter Membership Administration System is
failing to achieve<br>
> the<br>
> >functions it was meant to achieve:<br>
> >a. emailing members<br>
> >b. hosting fora for community discussions like
the Chapter<br>
> Advisory<br>
> >Council discussions and other fora<br>
><br>
> There clearly have been some ways in which the
system has not<br>
> been ideal, but I think we have seen some responses
on the<br>
> chapter-delegates mailing list of how things can be
working. <br>
> Please do continue to open tickets in the dedicated<br>
> implementation queue, "<a
href="mailto:AMSHelp@isoc.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">AMSHelp@isoc.org</a>".
Thanks.<br>
><br>
> It is important, also, that chapters use the
functionality that<br>
> exists. Each chapter can appoint up to two
communication<br>
> officers who manage the one-way communication via
email. This<br>
> assignment isn't automated, so it's something you
have to do.<br>
><br>
> The fora you're thinking of have been converted
into Chatter<br>
> groups. You can post via email, and it is also
possible to<br>
> received each message as it is posted rather like a
traditional<br>
> email listserv. There are still some ways this
functionality<br>
> does not work quite the way people used to mailing
lists expect,<br>
> I will note. But we also have heard many
complaints over time<br>
> about our reliance on mailing lists: for lots of
people, email<br>
> is a legacy system they don't like to use.<br>
><br>
> >To-date the failure of the emailing system is
such that even<br>
> ISOC<br>
> >Staff have been unable to use it for any
campaign whatsoever.<br>
><br>
> I don't believe this is actually correct. The
Internet Society<br>
> staff have been communicating with the community
since the<br>
> launch in December through this platform.<br>
><br>
> I understand that there may have been some
deficiencies in how<br>
> SPF or DKIM or both were configured. <br>
><br>
> >The discussion fora are completely empty.<br>
><br>
> I also don't believe this is correct, though it is
possible that<br>
> the ones you attend to are in fact empty. There is
definitely a<br>
> difference in the functionality of the Chatter
groups and the<br>
> old fora. We are attempting to refine that
experience.<br>
><br>
> > The porting of old<br>
> >discussions has lost all formatting, attached
documents etc.<br>
><br>
> It is definitely the case that some old formatting
was lost: the<br>
> Connect platform allowed HTML-tagged formatting and
the new one<br>
> doesn't. In consultation with the chapters who
participated in<br>
> the focus groups around this transition, we decided
to accept<br>
> this limitation. Also, it was only the former
Connect data that<br>
> was migrated to the new system: anything that was
outside that<br>
> necessarily stayed out. I am unaware of any
content that was<br>
> lost, and this was one of the major focal points of<br>
> post-migration testing, so if you can point to a
specific case<br>
> of data loss it would be very important to hear
about it<br>
> urgently, please.<br>
><br>
> > Functions<br>
> >like the emailing of the fora discussions are
non existent.<br>
><br>
> I think this is overstating the case, but there
have been<br>
> problems with the ways email interacts with all of
this. One<br>
> issue is that the default was to send batches
rather than each<br>
> message. We are diligently working to find new
problematic<br>
> cases.<br>
><br>
> >The system appears to require lots of
pre-established templates<br>
> none<br>
> >of which are available.<br>
><br>
> You do need to template messages in advance. There
are<br>
> different templates, but it's wise for each chapter
to maintain<br>
> their control over the templates they use. If
there is a gap<br>
> that you need help with urgently, please open a
ticket with<br>
> <a href="mailto:AMSHelp@isoc.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">AMSHelp@isoc.org</a>.
Thanks.<br>
><br>
> >The list of problems is too long to list here
but the result is<br>
> a loss<br>
> >of community history as well as a complete
hindrance on<br>
> membership<br>
> >management at Chapter level. ISOC is without a
communications<br>
> tool - a<br>
> >tool that should have been at the centre of its
operations and<br>
> that<br>
> >has failed to deliver.<br>
> ><br>
> >4.1.1 What is ISOC planning to do to fix this
serious problem?<br>
><br>
> We are doing monthly releases to refine and improve
the<br>
> platform.<br>
><br>
> >4.1.2 How long will it take to fix?<br>
><br>
> This depends on what we mean by "fix". There are
some issues<br>
> that require more work than others, but I believe
there are some<br>
> fixes that have been publicly requested that are
for things not<br>
> actually broken in the system as designed, so it is
hard for me<br>
> to answer this fairly. In particular, there have
been some<br>
> calls to revert to a state of affairs in respect of
data sharing<br>
> that we simply cannot do under various privacy laws
today. <br>
> While I have sympathy with those frustrated by the
loss of<br>
> sometimes lower-friction ways of doing things, we
cannot leave<br>
> aside our obligtions to conform with privacy and
anti-spam laws.<br>
><br>
> There is a “Community Portal Updates” Chatter
group. All<br>
> interested chapter leaders are invited to join that
group. This<br>
> will help everyone understand what the monthly
releases include.<br>
><br>
> >4.1.3 If the system is "born dead" would ISOC
consider finding<br>
> an<br>
> >alternative system and dropping the current
system on the basis<br>
> that<br>
> >it is a failure and immediately proposing an
alternative?<br>
><br>
> The system is not "born dead", as the success of
some users has<br>
> shown. This system went through an exhaustive
selection process<br>
> involving, among others, chapter leaders who could
comment on<br>
> the functionality. This is a large change,
however, which is<br>
> always difficult.<br>
><br>
> >4.2 Relationship between Chapters and HQ in
matters of national<br>
> importance<br>
> ><br>
> >4.2.1 Does ISOC have a rulebook regarding
engagement relating<br>
> to<br>
> >Internet policy and advocacy in countries where
there is a<br>
> local<br>
> >Chapter?<br>
><br>
> We try always to engage in development of our
positions in<br>
> consultation with those locally on the ground in
any country we<br>
> attend to. That does not always mean direct
engagement by the<br>
> person who is visiting: it often means that people
come<br>
> well-briefed with the Internet Society position. Of
course, it<br>
> has happened on some occasions that the Internet
Society and a<br>
> chapter in a country do not agree about something,
though it is<br>
> pretty rare.<br>
><br>
> >4.2.2 How does ISOC align itself with the
positions taken by a<br>
> local<br>
> >chapter in a specific territory when ISOC in
intervening<br>
> directly in<br>
> >that territory? For example, your visit in the
UK is triggered<br>
> by your<br>
> >participation at a conference. How will you
align your<br>
> narrative with<br>
> >the Chapter's narrative?<br>
><br>
> First, there is no actual requirement that a
chapter must agree<br>
> with the wider Internet Society (it has happened,
as noted<br>
> above). But in general we try always to make sure
we are well<br>
> aligned. I came to the UK, for instance,
well-briefed ahout the<br>
> topics I was likely to interact with people about.
It is not,<br>
> of course, possible for any one person to meet with
everyone in<br>
> every chapter. But in general we try to ensure the
whole<br>
> Internet Society, including the chapters, are
largely aligned on<br>
> these matters. That might mean that there are tiny
differences<br>
> in the ways we talk about certain things, of
course. But the<br>
> richness of a choir comes from the many voices
coming together<br>
> to sing the same musical piece.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet
Society<br>
> <a href="mailto:e%3Asullivan@isoc.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">e:sullivan@isoc.org</a>
m:+1 416 731 1261<br>
> Help protect the Internet for everyone:<br>
> <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are
automatically<br>
> subscribed<br>
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with
the Internet<br>
> Society Chapter Portal (AMS):<br>
> <a
href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a><br>
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:<br>
> <a
href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
subscribed<br>
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the
Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS):<br>
<a href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a><br>
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a
href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>--------------------------------------<br>
Joly MacFie +1<span title="Call with Google Voice">2185659365</span> </div>
<div>--------------------------------------</div>
-</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a>
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>