[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Veni Markovski]

Dear Fred,

I am very happy you took the time to respond in the mail thread, and that's 
a positive sign. Having said that, I must share a little concern of mine.


You see, you ask today about contribution on the ICANN/WSIS/WGIG. But 
people have contributed in the past to ISOC, and have seen their 
contributions fading away, or being sent to the trash folder. Will they 
waste their time to send you any comments. They would comment directly to 
the WGIG and the WSIS. Why? Because they know what will happen with their 
contribution, and with their concerns. Further below you will see some 
quotes from past documents (Lynn St.Amour's reports, Board committee's 
reports, etc.), which were delivered in a timely manner to you and the 
Board, but were never taken into consideration, and never managed to change 
the US-centric policy of ISOC.


Every time me, Patrick, or someone from a chapter comes and says things 
which are not pleasant for your ear, you tend to jump on us and keep on 
asking us what exactly we meant, how we meant it, why did we say it, etc., 
etc.


This is not fair. If chapters have any rights within ISOC, that's the right 
to speak out and to ask questions. Chapters must be allowed to speak, 
without feeling afraid that the ISOC leadership will jump on them for what 
they said.


Let me remind you something about substance and contribution.
In 2003 several of the Trustees - George Sadowsky, Alan Greenberg, Don 
Heath, Glenn Ricart and me have formed an ad-hoc committee and made a 
proposal to the Board of how to improve relations with the chapters and how 
to better work in the public policy field. Our work was not taken into 
consideration, and two years later, when there was a crisis with the 
membership I reminded you and the Board about the document we produced. The 
sad thing is this document sounded still quite timely. If ISOC HQ has at 
least had some follow-up with our proposal, then we might have had been 
better off today - with the relations with chapters, with work ISOC does in 
the public policy pillar, etc.

Here's what we wrote in 2003:

>2. Put together a set of tools and programs to help educate and influence 
>public policy-makers, with respect to Internet coordination activities and 
>processes; Internet policy, technology, open source, security. Tools 
>should include the definitive portal on these areas, and materials for 
>country/region tutorials. Where there are existing suppliers of such 
>portals or materials, investigate outsourcing or joint projects.
>
>In parallel with these major efforts, there are a number of initiatives 
>which will consume far fewer resources but generate reasonable rewards on 
>a much shorter time-frame.
>
>1. Create a methodology under which Chapters can become distribution 
>channels within their territory (aimed at developing countries).
>
>2. Proactive work with Chapters to identify local educational needs and 
>then help them implement.
>
>3. Clearing house on speakers and experts on Internet technical, 
>applications and policy.


ISOC didn't produce the definitive portal. ISOC didn't create the 
methodology to use Chapters for distribution. ISOC didn't pro actively work 
with Chapters, and didn't do the clearing house on speakers.


Instead of addressing these failures, you keep on blaming everyone who does 
not agree with the Party line* that (s)he is not substantive.

Well, so far, in the last years, I have not seen anyone on this mailing 
list (chapter-delegates) who has not been substantive.

ALL chapters contribute in the discussions we have here. To say that 
there's lack of substance means to ignore their contributions.

Yes, chapters often have views which are different from ISOC HQ guides. 
That's the beauty of ISOC - because it unites 75+ chapters, which come from 
all over the world, and each of them has its own opinion on many items, 
which are relevant for the chapters. The worst thing is to behave like "the 
ugly Americans, who come and tell us, "this is the way we do it, so should 
you"." (this is a quote by governor of Texas George W. Bush, by the way. 
Amazingly, he forgot this when he become President.


Let the Board encourage chapters dialogue, let ISOC not only listen, but 
also hear what chapters say. This was, by the way, the message that was 
conveyed to Lynn St. Amour in Mar del Plata earlier this year. Ten chapters 
from all over the world told her exactly this. There were many current, 
past and future Trustees there, from Europe, Africa, Asia Pacific, the 
US... What did this message change in you with respect towards chapters?

Let us take a look at some of those and see what ISOC HQ and you 
contributed there substantively:


"Many asked that HQ work to be better connected to chapters and try to 
ensure diversity in our approaches.  A suggestion was made that we make 
more frequent use of survey tools to ensure that chapters and members have 
more of a voice. There was also a request that ISOC do more with multiple 
languages.

Stefano Trumpy (ISOC Italy) [...] added that, under pressure of the ongoing 
debate on internet governance in WSIS/WGIG, ISOC is recognized as the more 
accredited representative of the Internet orthodoxy and, in the same time, 
the public policy and societal aspects gained much more relevance. The 
chapters are interpreting the needs/expectations of the local Internet 
communities and have the chance to interpret a role similar to the "at 
large membership" of ICANN, in coordination with ISOC HQ.  The recent 
discussion on the re-establishment of the paying individual membership in 
ISOC that configures a new constituency to be represented in the board is a 
signal of unease of the chapters that feel themselves as too marginal in 
the present organizational infrastructure of ISOC. The chapters may provide 
to ISOC an image more decentralized compared to the image that ISOC has 
today, like an organization too much US centric. We have to work in order 
to improve the relation of the chapters with the HQs."


Now, talking about substance...
How did you address Stefano's concerns about the US-centric role of ISOC? 
Just saying "It's not true" doesn't make it false.
How did you address the fact that chapters feel themselves as too marginal 
in ISOC? Saying, "No, you are not", doesn't change the fact they are being 
constantly ignored.
How did you address the multiple languages issues? When Patrick and me 
proposed to translate what you proposed - "suggest that ISOC make an 
announcement at the same time the IAOC does", why didn't you do it?
And, at the end, how did you take into account developing countries 
viewpoints in all ISOC does - a question which was raised to Lynn in Mar 
del Plata, and reported by her to the Board?


ISOC needs a change, and this current discussion is a clear sign for that. 
If you don't see these signs, you may be caught in surprise. Don't look for 
someone else to blame ISOC's failures. Success has many fathers, failure 
only one mother, as we say. I can't accept the constant allusions that 
chapters are guilty for ISOC's failures.


Hope that after this message, you will understand why there's no 
"substance" of the kind you consider "proper", but substance which chapters 
feel appropriate. Chapters will contribute to the WSIS/WGIG, as they have 
been doing in the past; they will just not go through ISOC HQ for that, as 
they have seen what happens to their proposals, views, suggestions in the 
past. If you really want contribution, you have to change the way ISOC HQ 
accepts the chapters, not the other way around.

best,

Veni


______________


* - the "Party line" is a term, well known for the chapters in Poland, 
Slovenia, Bulgaria... all countries who had to live under communism. The 
"Party line" was the official policy, and everyone was supposed to support 
it. Party members who didn't support it were called "dissidents", and often 
were sent to prison or concentration camp, or simply killed. Some of the 
ISOC leadership reactions to criticism from chapters reminded Jacek 
Gajewski from Poland of those times.

v.

At 03:15 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:

>This discussion seems to manage to convince itself of some things without 
>doing the fundamental conceptual ground work, without actually answering 
>the questions on the table, and without actually answering the questions 
>being raised.
>
>Let me remind you of the statement of mine that opened this discussion:
>
>On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>If the right thing to do is to make ICANN a treaty organization or move 
>>its functions to one, then I'm willing to support that. I have to say 
>>that the argument for doing so needs to be laid out pretty clearly, as 
>>the current treaty organizations haven't been inspiring. But I'm willing 
>>for someone to make the case. The argument "we're from government, so 
>>we're obviously the right people for the job" doesn't work. I need an 
>>argument that points out issues with the current structure - ICANN, RIRs, 
>>registrars and registries, etc etc etc and demonstrates that none of 
>>those problems would have happened if ICANN had been a treaty 
>>organization and no new problems would have materialized, or that there 
>>was a way to definitively handle new problems that might arise.
>
>Which of the many emails that have been exchanged addresses this question? 
>Will you do so now?
>
>>When we discuss such delicate matters, we must not forget, that the 
>>Internet didn't start with ISOC, and it will continue to exist long time 
>>after ISOC, because if ISOC doesn't change it might as well disappear 
>>with time.
>
>Can you make a statement that is a little more substantive, please?