[Chapter-delegates] ISOC policy focus for 2006

[Franck Martin]

Veni, Matthew and al,

To add to all your points.

I think it is important for ISOC to formalise in 2006 the link it has 
with other structures. I think it is time we thing about  signing a MOU 
between ISOC and ICANN. There is an IETF liaison at the ICANN board, 
IETF is a part sponsored activity of ISOC. This could be enough for 
getting an MOU, but there are other topics that could go in, like ccTLD 
workshop (education and outreach) done by ISOC on the behalf of ICANN....

Another MOU could be with IEEE. If you look carefully, the only bodies 
that make the internet standards today are the IETF and IEEE (I think 
ITU lost the plot long time ago). It would be nice to formalise the 
relationship beween ISOC(IETF) and IEEE.

In a similar mannner may be with the W3C?

Finally I'm not sure what is the legal structure between ISOC and IETF, 
but there could be ground for a review and see if it is sufficient, or 
if it needs to be reinforced.

Finally, on a similar manner it is important to have ISOC accredited to 
the following UN bodies: ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, Outer Space Affairs, UN 
(New York).

In terms of lobby, ISOC will have to think about placing a person close 
to the secretariat of the new IGF. I think because lot of people will 
want a job for life, the IGF will slowly become an independent UN 
structure. It will be our role to remind everybody the conclusions of WSIS.

With this enhanced structure ISOC should be stronger and more present 
where it matters.

Cheers.

Veni Markovski wrote:

>Matthew,
>It seems that 2006 will be yet another of the important years for the 
>Internet.
>There are several key issues - I can divide them into two parts - for 
>the global Internet, and for ISOC. See below:
>
>First, and above all - the issue with the Internet Governance (IG), 
>and the IGForum. It's important not only for ISOC, but for the whole 
>Internet. ISOC has been quoted by governments of US, Canada, 
>Australia and Singapore as the right organization to do the forum. At 
>the same time, the members' survey showde ISOC does not want to have 
>a forum. There are chapters which are very active in the IG (see 
>www.isoc.bg/ig ), and perhaps that could be a way for ISOC to 
>participate and to make a difference - through the chapters who are 
>interested in this matter. Because at the UN it's important to have 
>the support of the countries above, but it's much more important to 
>have voices in your favour by Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, India, 
>Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, etc.
>
>Secondly, which is more specific to ISOC - what changes ISOC needs in 
>its governing model, with respect to the fact that today the 
>organizational members contribute less than 1/4 of the budget, but 
>elect 1/2 of the Board of Trustees. This includes also how to verify 
>the individual members.
>
>Third, how the chapters could use the funding for the so-called 
>"regional presence" of ISOC - or how to make sure the chapters in 
>developing countries can be funded more effectively.
>In connection with second and third priority, here's the question of 
>what is the importance of the chapters for ISOC, and especially in 
>the context of the renewal of the .org agreement with ICANN.
>
>Fourth, what will be ISOC's policy with regards to accessability and 
>affordability. What programs can ISOC make with the big donors of the 
>Society - e.g. Microsoft, Cisco, etc. How can this help reduce 
>poverty by using ICT.
>
>Fifth - e-governance. ISOC can make a difference by providing advice 
>and know-how on policy changes, legal framework creation, etc.
>
>Best,
>Veni
>
>
>  
>
>

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Franck Martin
franck at sopac.org
"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
G. Bachelard