[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003

[Lynn St.Amour]

Hi Franck,

a few quick answers as I'm rushing for a plane shortly.

At 10:28 PM +1200 6/4/05, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>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.

ISOC's first charter written in 1992 by Vint 
Cerf, Bob Kahn and Lyman Chapin is posted at: 
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/isochistory.shtml). 
Is this what you were referring to?

snip...

>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.

we're very happy to help, but often the best way 
to do this is locally as the activities and 
players are much more visible in region than 
halfway across the planet.

>>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.

I believe most of the reason was that forums re: 
Internet matters just exploded.  There are now 
regional meetings (e.g. RIR's, Apricot, etc.), 
topical meetings (e.g. security, IPv6, web, 
etc.), etc.   And as the use of the Internet 
expanded, so did the number of experts, so it was 
not necessary to go to one meeting to "hear from 
the experts".

>  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...

our strategy is to hold regional INET's (similar 
to the model you mention above) and the recent 
one organized alongside the Pan-Arab WSIS 
Conference was a very good event.  This was 
organized by the ISOC Egypt chapter and ISOC. 
We had quite a number of attendees from the 
Middle East as well as Africa and many were 
associated with the ministries of 
Telecommunications in these countries which was 
very important given the WSIS discussions.

>>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

This is not true!

>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.

Franck, you were all heard and the Board did 
discuss the matter again; and they  decided to 
stand by their decision as it is in line with 
ISOC's (original and current) purposes.

>
>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?

In fact PacINET has been posted very prominently 
on our home page for quite some time.

>>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.

The Committee that reviews many of these 
statements has members from all of ISOC's 
partners/related bodies.

see below (also posted at: 
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg42.shtml)

ISOC Internet Collaboration Committee - Submitted by Lynn St.Amour

1. Date of adoption of this charter by the ISOC Board of Trustees:

This committee was modeled after some informal 
meetings held during Q3 and Q4 of 2003 in 
preparation for WSIS I which was held in December 
2003. It was informally agreed in February 2004 
by ISOC's Board of Trustees and began more formal 
operations in April 2004.

2. Authorization

The formation of this committee was informally 
agreed (i.e. no resolution was passed).

3. Purpose

The ISOC Internet Collaboration Committee is a 
temporary committee formed to work with ISOC to 
give input to our directions, position 
statements, etc. with regards to various Internet 
Governance activities, notably WSIS 
http://www.itu.int/wsis/, WGIG 
http://www.wgig.org/ and
  developments in the ITU arena. The Committee lends depth and breadth
  to ISOC and our activities in these areas.

The Committee is also expected to be a resource 
and 'sounding board' for the various 
organizations and individuals represented on the 
Committee.

Policy decisions or position statements remain 
the responsibility of each 
organization/individual and are expected to be 
vetted as determined by each organization's 
individual processes. In ISOC's case, any new 
positions would be brought before the ISOC Board 
to be vetted as appropriate.

At this time the Committee has no outside 
standing or representation and this is not 
advised. Our position is that we're stronger as a 
number of individual organizations working 
together collaboratively.

It is expected that this committee will disband 
when the Internet Governance or WSIS and WGIG 
activities reach an appropriate state.

Specifically for ISOC, the ISOC Internet 
Collaboration Committee is expected to support 
the areas below. Note this will be facilitated by 
the activities of the Committee but is not the 
direct responsibility of the committee. That will 
be the responsibility of ISOC staff.
	*	Closely track developments in the 
Governance/WSIS/WGIG activities and
  keep the full Board apprised of significant developments.
	*	 Determine and publish ISOC's 
responses to issues arising from the
  activities mentioned above.
	*	 Develop and publish 
communications to the ISOC Advisory Council or
  ISOC members regarding Governance/WSIS/WGIG/ITU, as appropriate.

4. Membership

The ISOC Internet Collaboration Committee is 
chaired by the ISOC President & CEO, but this is 
expected to move to the Sr. Policy Manager when 
hired. You will note the committee is quite large 
but given schedules and the expected duration of 
these activities this is deemed to be a good 
thing.

The Committee members are:

  ISOC Board of Trustees Chair - Fred Baker
  ISOC President & CEO - Lynn St.Amour
  ISOC Board of Trustees - Pindar Wong
  ISOC Board of Trustees - Rosa Delgado
  ISOC Board of Trustees - Veni Markovski
  ISOC Board of Trustees - Desiree Miloshevic
  IAB Chair - Leslie Daigle
  IETF Chair - Brian Carpenter
  ICANN General Manager, Global Partnerships - Theresa Swinehart
  ICANN President & CEO - Paul Twomey
  Number Resource Organization (NRO) Chair /APNIC - Paul Wilson
  AfriNIC - Pierre Dandjinou or Adiel Akplogan - TBC
  ARIN CEO - Ray Plzak
  LACNIC - Raul Echeberria
  RIPE NCC CEO - Axel Pawlik
  Root server liaison - Joao Damas
  Root server liaison - Johan Ihren
  ISOC Org. member AC Chair - Ed Juskevicius
  PIR - VP Policy & Law - David Maher
  GIPI - George Sadowsky
  ISOC/ICANN - Alejandro Pisanty
  ISOC VP of Public Policy - Mike Nelson
  ISOC VP of Individual Members and Chapters - Jim Galvin
  ISOC Sr. Program/Communications Manager - Peter Godwin
  ISOC Director of Membership - David McAuley
  ISOC Sr. Program Manager - Mirjam Kuehne - Administrative support


>I don't think this method will make the WGIG 
>consider the documents submitted by ISOC,

The documents submitted by ISOC are considered 
very carefully by the WGIG and WSIS leaders and 
by many governments (some who are in agreement 
with our position and some who are not (and we 
work actively with all of them).   I meet 
regularly with the heads of WSIS and WGIG and 
ISOC is absolutely one of the organizations they 
listen to and turn to for our opinion and advice.

>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.

We believe the Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) 
addresses what ISOC is, the role we all play in 
ISOC and the value be bring/gain.   If it does 
not, please let us know ASAP as we are getting 
close to finalizing it.  The SOP was intended to 
be ISOC's unifying document so that we could use 
this to organize our activities and hopefully 
allow us to focus as effectively as possible on 
strategic projects going forward rather than 
wandering around in these weeds forever.

Thanks for your comments Franck,

Lynn

>>
>>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
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature 227.asc (    /    ) (00071B1D)