[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003
Veni Markovski
veni at veni.com
Sat Jun 4 12:34:17 PDT 2005
At 10:52 04-06-05 -0500, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>Certainly when we read again and again the statements that express the
>"need" for a "new body" to discuss Internet governance, I see recurrently
>a vacuum that should have not existed, that should or could have been
>filled by ISOC, and that a number of reasons caused for it not to be
>filled by ISOC. If ISOC is to be one of the primary forces to shape the
>future of the Internet, especially given the WSIS/WGIG framework, now's
>the time, but we still have to actually do it.
Alejandro,
I agree with you to some extent, unfortunately I also see that ISOC has put
itself in the corner on the WSIS/WGIG front, or the public policy pillar,
esp. because it has showed a continues disrespect for international chapters.
As you know, the most important part of the WSIS/WGIG environment is the
truly international character of the WGIG and the work in the WSIS. I am
afraid that according to many, also members of the WGIG, ISOC has turned
into a too US-centric organization. ISOC statements have been quoted only
by the US government (well, the Bulgarian, too:) only, and not anyone else.
I agree by your statement that ISOC is the organization to fill the vacuum.
I've been saying this for the last three years, before the WSIS even
started, but the majority of the ISOC board did not support me there. And
that's why today ISOC seem to be not interested in public policy, but
primarily in the technical issues - the IETF, the IETF restructuring, etc.
I also agree with your statement that ISOC is one of the primary forces,
but not around WSIS/WGIG, rather around the RFC writing, around the IETF.
I also agree with you see that the vacuum exists - but it's also thanks to
ISOC being passive, or "neutral" as some say. I think this vacuum seems to
be going to be filled in by either an existing UN body, or by a new
international agency to be founded with that specific task.
Today for ISOC to try to prove that it's a truly international and
non-US-centric organization, it should do it by quick recognition of the
importance of chapters; they should not be named "noisy" or "self-serving",
they should be brought on board and used, not neglected. I see no other way
for ISOC today to prove it has some real value within the public policy of
the WSIS/WGIG, and not only as the home of the IETF.
best,
veni
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list