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

[Veni Markovski]

At 10:58 20-06-05  -0500, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>Veni,
>
>please concentrate and provide answers to the questions. [...]  instead
>of actually contributing.

Alejandro,
Chapters and some of the Trustees have provided ISOC with a number of 
documents and ideas in the last couple of years. I don't really care how 
Fred sees me, as I have been doing my work without feeling he is the one to 
measure what I do. But we are hear in a mailing, discussion list. We 
discuss things, trying to reach to something positive for ISOC, may be 
ICANN, but for sure - for the Internet community. And this is far more 
important than how I feel, how you think I feel, or how you think Fred 
feels about me. Nobody cares about these feelings, as they are not the 
substance of our work. I, for one thing, have never allowed my personal 
feelings to influence my work on the board where I serve.

>I know this is undiplomatic.

Alejandro, I can accept from you any kind of tone, as long as we, at the 
end of the day, want the same things. We may have different approaches, or 
different styles, but when we talk about Internet, Internet access, 
developing countries, etc., we are on the same side of the barricade. I 
prefer to hear my wrongdoing from friends and colleagues.

>1. what do you think should be done, by whom, how, and when, to address
>your concerns about governmental participation in Internet governance? In

OK, I will repeat again what I have been saying many times.
It will be probably faster in time, and shorter in size, than going into 
the messages and copy & paste. I am somewhat worried, though, that you've 
missed these messages in the last two years; perhaps <i>your</i> "numerous 
fiduciary responsibilities" have kept you away from the chapter delegated 
list.

Obviously what I think should be done as of today is not important, because 
it should have been done long time ago, by ISOC and the ISOC-related 
organizations. What <i>could</i> be done, however, is to organize ISOC 
chapters to talk to their governments, and try to change the way 
politicians look at the Internet.
So, I responded to your questions "what" - to change governmental policies.

ISOC has more than 75 chapters, and many in formation in the last few 
years, but they have only been approached for issues related to ISOC - e.g. 
to give support for the .org bid. What ISOC could do is to approach* them 
at once with a project of how to educate governments, how to make sure they 
understand not only the technical side**, but also the political side of 
the Internet.
That's the response to the question "by whom" - by the chapters.

Such a project, if Lynn was listening in Mar del Plata meeting with the 
chapters, was already suggested to ISOC, but was never reviewed by the 
leadership. The work, which needs to be done, should focus on governments 
which have good cooperation either with ISOC chapters, or with other 
non-governmental organizations. It requires a strong, at least couple of 
years, plan on what needs to be done, both on national and regional level.
This is a response to your question "how".

To your last question, "when"?
Yesterday. ISOC has been late, quite late, and it keeps on walking on the 
track where everyone else is running. I am afraid that the time may come 
when we'll find out ISOC has been running actually on a different stadium, 
not only on a different track.

remarks:
* - "approach" here means not just sending an e-mail to 75 chapters, and 
receiving 20 responses. It means getting someone to sit and talk to the 
chapters, by phone, skype, icq, yahoo, or whatever they use. "Approach" 
means to change the way chapters are being accepted by ISOC HQ; as we all 
know today that's not quite positive.
** - governments are not interested at all by the technical side, as you 
have probably found out in Geneva. That's why technical arguments don't 
work within the WSIS/WGIG environment.


>what way is this not addressed in the statements put forward by Brian
>Carpenter, Lynn StAmour, and Paul Twomey in the public consultation of the
>WGIG a week ago in Geneva? In what way, within your numerous fiduciary
>responsibilities, will you propose that the situation change?

Problem with Lynn and Brian statements goes into the second remark above. 
Their statements are good, as we all know that. But they just are not 
appropriate for this environment. I guess, I can make a parallel with our 
current discussion - my points are also relevant, but some of you find them 
inappropriate, or may be announced with a politically incorrect voice. As 
for Paul's statement - I already quoted it to Fred, in a previous e-mail.

What will I propose to change the situation? There's work that needs to be 
done, not just statements to be made. It's great to have a good statement 
in Geneva. But it seems easy for many people to make statements there, 
while they don't try to change things in their own country. And I don't 
mean the US here, which for obvous reasons, have a very pro-ICANN position. 
Let's see how ISOC Geneva office influences the EU position? Or even the 
position of Swtizerland? You should not ask me what I do, you should ask if 
ISOC has been doing enough. I am just one person, Bulgaria is a small 
country. ISOC-Bulgaria has limited budget.

However, and as we all know, it's very easy to put the questions, but the 
difficult part is what concrete can each of us do in her/his own country, 
and only after that to take a look at the global issues. I've personally 
have done my homework in Bulgaria, and now I can look for the global 
issues. When I saw that there's no support from ISOC, then I went out and 
look for contributions outside of ISOC. One can not stay and wait for ISOC 
to start to understand the global public policy issues, esp. after years of 
neglecting local chapters. But one should not give up trying to make ISOC 
understand and change. You probably know that only this year, and after 
quite a fight, there is a program for real support to chapters, don't you? 
I'd say that with ISOC it's easy to see when the solution will be on the 
table - the moment when there will be no need to fight at all for such 
programs, that will be the moment when ISOC will start to make a difference 
in the public policy pillar - the way it does in the Standards, by the way. 
I haven't heard anyone criticizing ISOC on what it does with respect to the 
IETF, but I have heard many people being critical on ISOC. If you go back 
to the archives of the chapter-delegates list, you may find out just a few 
of them published recently - Izumi Aizu, Bill Drake, Adam Peak, and others 
- people highly respected in the public policy arena.

best,
veni