[Chapter-delegates] How can ISOC chapters help in the development of IP-based networks?

[Veni Markovski]

Alejandro,
A small note in the beginning: The conversation is not about me, or how 
I am being placed. This is not the serious conversation.
It is about how ISOC and the chapters are being placed, and how they 
could be placed. Now, this is the serious conversation, would you agree? 
I hope you would, so that we could remove the personal part from the 
discussion, as it is not productive.

You say that ISOC should not encourage chapters to do anything that can 
be construed as medddling in national issues, but at the same time ISOC 
often argues with chapters, when they take positions, which are not 
being consulted with ISOC in advance. Isn't this interfering in national 
issues?
I would agree with you on the "basic requests for chapters", but then, 
you may wish to ask why, for example, the Macedonian chapter is still 
not recognized - several years into the making - and is it not because 
ISOC had issues with their statute, and wanted it changed, if I remember 
correctly. And I am sure there is communication between chapters and 
ISOC HQ, where chapters have been told that they should not do something :)

And last, but not least, to the most important question you ask, "*How 
would a "you should do this" order from HQ match your concurrent claim 
for bottom-up building of ISOC policy?*"
I don't remember using the term "*you should do this*" with regards to 
chapters, it's the other way around - the chapters have the right, and 
sometimes the obligation, to tell ISOC HQ "you should do this", because 
they are the ones bringing the legitimacy to ISOC as an international 
organization. They are the ones, who supported ISOC in the most 
difficult times, and the ones, who organized the massive support for 
ISOC, which brought to ISOC the management of the .org TLD. If I am not 
mistaken, we - as chapters - have organized several hundred letters of 
support for ISOC, by academia, non-profits, and governments, because we 
believed in what we were originally told: that PIR funding will be used 
for public policy projects, and not to cover the expenses of ISOC. So, 
ISOC today is a $ 30 Million per year, because the chapters supported 
it, believing not that they will get something, but because we all hoped 
this will make the Internet safer, more open, more free and accessible. 
The same way the individual members have the right to tell ISOC HQ "you 
should do this". And I am not even talking about the organizational 
members, because they not only have always had this right, but they have 
used it, and ISOC HQ has listened;-) After all, in the time when ISOC 
didn't have money, the organizational members were the only ones, 
contributing to the budget, and felt that have the right to say that.

Last piece of information that may make us think a little bit: why is 
that certain countries say that they are fine working with ISOC, a 
US-based non-profit organization, subject to the laws of the US, but the 
same certain countries would not even mention the name of the country 
United States, or any other organizations, working in the Internet? Do 
you think that it is because ISOC is neutral, or because it is safe and 
harmless, as it is trying to produce positions, which are acceptable by 
all? Is it really possible to have a position, that is accepted by 
everyone? And these are rhetorical questions, because I'd like to remind 
all of you about a position of ISOC from 2002, which was published in 
The Economist, and may give us some food for thoughts on how ISOC's 
positions have changed in the last 8 years:

/"SIR -- Your article on censorship of the Internet in China referred to an
organisation backed by the Chinese government that calls itself the
Internet Society of China ("Stop your searching", September 7th).
I want to make it clear that this group is in no way affiliated to the
Internet Society (ISOC), a global not-for-profit membership organisation
founded in 1991 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards,
education and policy development./

/The attempt at censorship in China is diametrically opposed to our
principles and we would never endorse a pledge to limit the dissemination
of information nor similar actions that you describe. ISOC's primary
mission is to expand stable and secure use of the Internet worldwide
and to encourage openness, transparency and democratic processes.
Access to the Internet is an important ingredient in the free flow of
information necessary for the long-term welfare of all countries.
Government-imposed limitations on access to search engines, as
proposed by China, serve neither citizens nor their governments./

/Lynn St Amour
President and CEO
Internet Society
Reston, Virginia"/



Veni


On 12/15/2010 22:33, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Veni,
>
> first, you are going to be called to accede to greatness of heart and 
> forgive the rest of the world for not being you.
>
> Some poor souls just operate differently, others are not as 
> fortunately placed as you are, and yet others do their own thing, with 
> similar or superior results, quietly, be it out of modesty or because 
> making some activities loudly public would hamper their effectiveness. 
> For some, what you are doing would be called grandstanding, for others 
> dangerous, for others self-defeating. It depends on so many variables!
>
> I do not think that ISOC should encourage chapters to do anything that 
> can be construed as medddling in national issues, or allow to create 
> the accusation that the chapter serves a foreign power of some sort.
>
> One of the basic requisites to form a chapter is that the chapter must 
> be an autonomous, self-standing organization in its country, legally 
> constituted and registered according to national law as much as 
> possible for the nature of the organizations, conditions of the 
> country, and resources available.
>
> We do come together as chapters of an international organization in 
> that we share some basic principles ("the Internet is for everyone"), 
> information, informed opinion, and other resources.
>
> But it defeats ISOC's purposes, and each chapter's purposes, to act as 
> if there were a party line dictated or even recommended to the 
> chapters when it comes to being able to cause change in a country's 
> laws or public policies. That is within the national remit. Each of us 
> handles it differently.
>
> Do you think differently? How would a "you should do this" order from 
> HQ match your concurrent claim for bottom-up building of ISOC policy?
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101216/71ac441d/attachment.htm>