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

Thu Dec 16 17:28:02 PST 2010

John,

thanks for shifting the framing of the question.

Coordinating is one thing and we can do it in many ways (in fact we do 
often and pretty successfully, though much can be improved.)

Sending messages out from ISOC HQ inviting chapters to actually do 
something requires more caution.

What is it about "bottom-up" that doesn't fully fit in that picture?

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, John More wrote:

> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:18:48 -0500
> From: John More <morej1 at mac.com>
> To: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>,
>     Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] How can ISOC chapters help in the development
>      of IP-based networks?
> 
> I have been following this thread, which started with the dangerous proposal from the UN that a governments-only group, whose natural interest is to increase the power of governments, including those that are opposed to ISOC's ideals, start on governance issues.  It is clear that ISOC and ISOC chapters must play a strong role in preventing this initiative from freezing the other stakeholders out.  It is not a question of ISOC headquarters "ordering", it i a question of a coordinated approach.  As for meddling in national affairs, what is ISOC and its chapters supposed to do -- stay silent? Of course, each chapter must operate within the boundaries of law, except that it cannot claim to be speaking as an ISOC chapter if what it says goes against the basic tenets of ISOC (as was the case in the example cited by Veni).
>
> Finally, ad hominem statements in a discussion about policy matters are not appropriate, and are counter-productive.
>
> John More
> ISOC-DC
> morej1 at mac.com
>
> SCANNED BY NORTON ANTI-VIRUS.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>