[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Veni,

let's move forward in discussing the WGIG output and build, instead of 
discussing the roots of perceived failure, the role of ISOC in WSIS and 
post-WSIS.

History will distill - if it cares - what was done generously and who was 
self-serving. Deeds will speak more than words. The third person will 
speak more than the first.

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .



On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Veni Markovski wrote:

> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:34:17 -0400
> From: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
> To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>,
>      Franck Martin <franck at sopac.org>
> Cc: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org,
>      Vinton G. Cerf <vinton.g.cerf at mci.com>
> Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003
> 
> 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 
>