[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003

[Franck Martin]

Fred,

You provide an interesting e-mail, I will annotate shortly inline.

Fred Baker wrote:

> I'm looking through some old mail and realize that I didn't reply to 
> your email of 2 May.
>
> I guess the place we have to start is with a common view of what ISOC 
> is and what it is not. ISOC was created in (IIRC) 1992 when the IAB 
> collaborated with Larry Landweber to build an organization that would 
> do four things:

I think there is a paper around from Vint and Robert stating why ISOC 
was created. I'd like to see it to better understand where we are coming 
from.

>
>  - provide a legal home for the IETF,
>  - carry on the work of what were then called "the Landweber 
> conferences",
>    which basically provided a place for potential Internet users of lots
>    of stripes to get together and talk through the issues,
>  - provide pro bono training workshops to stimulate the development of 
> the
>    Internet,
>  - provide a professional society of people interested in the Internet.
>
> You will recognize these as being instantiated in (a) ISOC's 
> relationship with the IETF, (b) INET, (c) the Developing Countries 
> Workshops that were held along with INET for many years, and (d) 
> paying individual memberships - people like me have paid for their 
> memberships since 1992 in any year that ISOC could get a bill out to 
> us. You will notice that there is no mention of chapters in that. 
> Chapters came later, intended as a way to provide discussion fora and 
> training in local settings and meeting local needs. There is also no 
> mention of a free individual membership - that came later as well.

Well, I remember my colleagues from the Pacific Islands pushing quite 
hard for this free membership thing. Also from the description of intent 
to create ISOC, the mission "Internet is for everyone" is not linked 
with the 4 points above. A mission statement like "Developping the 
Future of the Internet" would be more appropriate.

>
> Time has elapsed and the Internet and the world it connects have 
> changed dramatically. So have the needs that ISOC - both ISOC globally 
> and ISOC's local instantiations in the form of chapters - needs to 
> address. From my perspective, the first question we have to ask is 
> "what are the needs in 2005", followed by "how can we together address 
> those needs?"

Agreed

>
> IETF still needs a legal home, and as you know ISOC continues to step 
> up to that. That doesn't make ISOC an IETF organization; if you look 
> at the IETF web site (http://www.ietf.org) you will find that the IETF 
> is an organized activity of ISOC. It does mean that IETF is important 
> to ISOC. You asked about an IETF newsletter; the IETF Education Team, 
> working with ISOC's education team headed by Mirjam Kuehne, is in the 
> process of developing a newsletter. It would be appropriate to forward 
> these to the chapters when they become available. The annual report in 
> 2004 includes some IETF information by area.

Yes, it is needed

>
> There is also still a broad need for discussion and education. This 
> need is addressed in a number of ways. The RIRs operate conferences 
> for their members, which are generally ISPs. Two ISP conerences that 
> are well known and produce a lot of web-accessible materials are NANOG 
> and RIPE. Perhaps less well known but none-the-less important are 
> WALC, AFNOG, SilkNOG (which is in formation), and Apricot (which is 
> educational but also has some characteristics of a trade show). 
> Companies like Cisco and Microsoft license educational materials to 
> schools and universities that train and certify operational support 
> staff, and there are a number of commercial schools that provide 
> similar training to professionals. There are also more targeted 
> workshops, such as the iLaw workshops held by Harvard's Berkman Center 
> for Internet & Society.

There is also PacNOG being created, but there are little relation 
between RIR, the NOG and especially the chapters. There may be a 
relation between these group and ISOC Central (as you call it) but ISOC 
Central does little to integrate these groups with the local chapters.

>
> Since perhaps 1998, INET has not been financially viable; in my 
> opinion, it was a victim of its own success. Two specific INET 
> conferences that the society was hoping would provide funding in fact 
> technically drove us into bankruptcy, and only a fast infusion of cash 
> from the Organizational Members and very tight management of budgets 
> since have kept us alive at all. The PIR funding is not being used to 
> erase debt, but since many of our projects and activities are (by 
> design) in keeping with PIR's mission, we are able to fund a lot of 
> things from that money. While funding our projects with PIR money, we 
> used Organizational Member funding to support other activities such as 
> the RFC Editor contract and the IETF budget, and are now fiscally 
> stable. By the way, we also use Organizational member funding for a 
> variety of projects that don't fall under PIR guidelines, often 
> projects that are specified as a condition of the donation.

Well, I'm glad you plugged the hole on INET finance. However the symptom 
of INET, is that ISOC had lost touch with what the users wanted with the 
conference. If you take a program lick "click online" from the BBC, they 
went to Internet World but totally ignored INET. I saw also people like 
cisco wondering why they had a booth in INET, and what was their purpose 
from being there. In INET there was a "folie des grandeurs" which did 
not match the purpose of the meeting. I think it has to re-grow back 
from a low key event, with help from the community. Put INET in a 
university, Invite only one or two persons maximum, make the conference 
entrance fee, very low...

>
> So we very much want to provide a place for Internet users to get 
> together and talk through issues, but INET as it was held in the 
> 1990's is no longer the right vehicle for accomplishing that. From my 
> perspective (and in this I only claim to peak for myself), I think 
> that there remains a place for occasional world-wide meetings, but the 
> key venues are regional and local. As such, ISOC has been seeking to 
> be involved with regional conferences, such as the recent conference 
> in Cairo, the CITI conferences in Venezuela, WALC, SilkNOG, AFNOG, 
> etc. They have the benefits of being targeted both in topic and 
> audience, and therefore are tuned to the attendee. ISOC has been 
> supporting these workshops in various ways and plans to continue doing 
> so.

Good

>
> The obvious local venues for this same activity are the chapters. By 
> nature, these operate in a somewhat entrepreneurial fashion. ISOC 
> cannot fund every chapter doing everything it wants to do - unless the 
> chapters want to find a way to contribute to ISOC's budget, even with 
> PIR funding ISOC simply does not have a tap into an infinite resource 
> pool. So the funding for a lot of what the chapters want to accomplish 
> has to be local. ISOC can, however, provide seed funding to help make 
> things happen, which is where the "project funding" comes in. By the 
> way, ISOC's professional members (which is to say "people like me", 
> whatever it turns out to be politically correct to call us) travel to 
> various places for various reasons, and are often willing to visit 
> chapters and give educational talks when we do.

I do not like your statement of "whatever it turns out to be politically 
correct to call us", it shows that you have still not understood the 
economical truth for most members in joining ISOC. If "Internet is for 
Everyone" then there should be no barrier (especially economical ones) 
for "actively" participating in ISOC. Free members are considered by 
ISOC as low grade citizensm and the comments from Lynn, linking our 
method to be heard to a DDOS on her mailbox were "amazing". I think you 
need to get in touch with your membership and its reality.

As you are talking about travelling. Do you know we are organising our 
annual meeting PacINET 2005 which will be 22-27 August 2005 in Kiribati. 
So if any pass by, or wants to give us a hand... (www.picisoc.org). 
Which make me think, I have not seen much support from ISOC in helping 
us organising this meeting. Not a single news item on the ISOC web site, 
not even a logo with a link, nothing, niet, rien... 22 Countries meeting 
every year in the Pacific Islands, not important?

>
> The other obvious function, important today but in 1992 simply one of 
> the topics of the Landweber conferences, is public policy. This covers 
> a range of issues, of which the WSIS/WGIG issues are a subset. What 
> ISOC has tried to do, with IETF help, has been to put together member 
> briefings and technical commentary (like 
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1984.txt and 
> http://www.isoc.org/briefings/) that will educate people - ministers 
> and anyone else - on the topics. This breaks down in two ways: we 
> can't predict every poorly-formed thought that enters a minister's 
> head, and we can't speak personally to every minister. It seems to me 
> - again, only my opinion - that this is a wonderful place for the 
> chapters and ISOC-central to collaborate. ISOC-central needs to know 
> what questions are lurking in the dark corners of the globe that it 
> can address and help. It also needs review of those briefings that 
> says "this helps, but that doesn't". In the end, having the local 
> chapter (acting as the minister's countrymen) advise the minister, 
> dispel the dark notions, and plant useful ones, helps both the local 
> chapter and the Internet at large - a win-win if I do say so myself. 
> Chapters could also produce briefings of their own, to share from 
> their own site if of only local importance, or from isoc.org if of 
> wider applicability. The one issue I will raise there is that the 
> folks generating such briefings should ensure that ISOC speaks with 
> one voice.

I fully agree with yo here, and I do hope that we provide this avenue, 
however in the last submission from ISOC to the WGIG, ISOC central did 
not ask the chapters to participate at all. We are still trying to 
figure out who wrote the documents. I don't think this method will make 
the WGIG consider the documents submitted by ISOC, because in the UN 
system, the main important question is "Who do you represent?" and the 
corrollary is "Does your membership has any power in mobilising around 
any issues?"

>
> So, what is ISOC, and what are the chapters? To me, ISOC is a global 
> organization serving a variety of interests, and chapters are its 
> local instantiation. Those interests are local in various countries, 
> regional, and global, and in some cases are industry-related. In 
> WSIS/WGIG, we are classified as a Civil Society organization, based on 
> the premise that we are non-governmental and not controlled by 
> industry, and represent Internet organizations and ISOC members. From 
> that perspective, we need to do a better job of communicating within 
> ourselves and cooperating. But in fact, the key consideration is that 
> we each joined as a way of supporting the considerations in 
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/principles/, and we should be 
> considering how to collaborate in achieving those things. To the 
> extent that we collaborate, we are likely to succeed. To the extent 
> that we squabble among ourselves, we dilute our own effectiveness and 
> test the patience of those who might benefit from interactions with us.

We don't squabble, ISOC Central decides without us, we don't have any 
significant representation at ISOC board, so don't expect us to agree 
with everything you do. Most chapters are dead men standing because they 
don't see what is the pragmatic value proposition, and I'm not talking 
about the ideals of ISOC.

>
> One thing that would be very helpful would be if you and the other 
> chapter delegates could review our draft strategic operating plan, 
> which you will find at http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/sop.php. 
> David has sent notes requesting review as it changed, including one 
> last week, and we have held two chat review sessions on it. Any 
> comments, questions, or issues you have would be of interest.

I have done that, I have also submitted to ISOC our position regarding 
the WSIS at the beginning of the process, but ISOC never came back to 
it. I'm involved in ISOC. I want ISOC to grow, be representative, 
signifiant, and have an independant voice. So count on me to be here. 
Sorry for the one who'd like to see me go away ;) I will continue to 
suggest things for ISOC to do and do them right. Hint: where are we in 
showing that ISOC is a multicultural, multilingual organisation. Where 
are the country flags on the ISOC web page going to the mission statment 
in the respective languages and links to chapters speaking the same 
language. Everybody agreed to do that, it started but you see simple 
tasks like this are too difficult for ISOC to do. I don't see the future 
bright for more complicated tasks taken by ISOC, but I'm an optimist. I 
think as chair, it is in your power to make it happen.

And you will have all my support...

Cheers

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20050604/40289923/attachment.asc>