[Chapter-delegates] Does your Chapter want to be a remote hub for the Global INET?

[Veni Markovski]

Joly, no need to be sorry for that - I don't think any of us would feel 
hurt or insulted by a disagreement, even if it is strong-worded.

I believe the point some of us are making is, that while we do remember 
Lynn's statement on ISOC China, not many people do. I also don't think 
we can object to them naming themselves as they wish, as long as it's 
ISOC China, and not just ISOC, or ISOC Bulgaria, or any other country. 
Also, let's not forget that there's an ISOC-HK chapter there.
But I'd like to pick on your last sentence.
It seems very strange that in the opening session it's not only that 
ISOC puts ISOC-China on the same level as the ITU and NITA. If we think 
a little bit more, these are two organizations, related to governments, 
and one intergovernmental one, which are supposed to engage in a 
multi-stakeholder dialogue, talking about the public interest.
Now, I am sure (well, I am not sure, but I hope so) that there will be 
other panelists, but as of now, this web site is sending a very wrong 
message. And if I read it this way, with all the knowledge I have, I can 
imagine how uninformed users would feel.

veni



On 2/23/2012 13:44, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Sorry to be contrary but...
>
> It's always been widely known,at least within ISOC, that the Internet 
> Society of China is a non-aligned body with regard to the Global 
> Internet Society. They have expressed in the past the imperatives, 
> which we may or may not understand or validate, that make them choose 
> this path.
>
> That said, engagement is good. We have, some years back, hosted their 
> representatives in NYC. They were politely interested in what we had 
> to say, as indeed were we the other way.  Not everything they do is 
> bad, by any means.
>
> It really smacks of hubris for us to tell them what they can call 
> themselves or, because of pique, not welcome them to engage to the 
> best of our ability. Such actions can only play to the rationale of 
> those that wish to replace the open multistakeholder model with a 
> top-down treaty based regime like the ITU.
>
>
> j
>