<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">https://youtu.be/-BPiusFlrgc</a><br></div></div><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">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">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">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">https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
> From: Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org" target="_blank">sullivan@isoc.org</a>><br>
> To: "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>><br>
> Cc: ISOC England <<a href="mailto:contact@isoc-e.org" target="_blank">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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>