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

[Joly MacFie]

Just to address your exact point. The Internet Society of China has never,
to my knowledge represented itself as ISOC China, it is known by the
acronym ISC. It is the representative association of the mainland Chinese
Internet community both organizational and individual.
http://www.isc.org.cn/english/About_Us/Bylaw/

According to published figures, as such, they thus represent just over 25%
of the Internet's 2 Billion users.

Similarly, going to Veni's point, I think we can recognize that the ITU is
a legitimate representative of global telecommunications interests, both
governmental and industry. And also that the NTIA, by virtue of its
geographic and historical role, is also a major stakeholder. Both less
independent perhaps than the the ISC.

I remember how much wailing and gnashing there was when the ITU failed to
accord the Internet Society, ICANN etc the equivalent respect. Well,
perhaps somewhat reluctantly, they have come around. Both the NTIA and ISC
have vocally advocated for the multistakeholder model (despite, in the
latter case, what they actually mean being up to interpretation).

The role of the Internet Society has ever been to promote intercourse
between the all stakeholders. "the Internet is for everyone." As we reach
this major landmark  it only makes sense to gather those stakeholders
together and make clear from the outset that we mean to involve all as we
reflect on the past and move forward.

It's shockingly small minded that some here might suggest the ISC be denied
their place just because of the organization's name is confusing, or that
their operational standards are at odds with our own.

j



On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:43 PM, John More <morej1 at mac.com> wrote:

> Fully understood. Not a question of blame,but of clarity.
>
> But it would seem to me to be important that such unaffiliated "ISOC" be
> identified as such.  And, if they would consider entering into a
> relationship that supported the Internet Society's basic principles, they
> could be treated as "associates".  Could be a loose or close association.
>  Appears to me that we re in loose association with ISOC China, which is
> good.  Anyway, just a thought for a long-range strategy and continued
> dialogue.
>
> John More
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:09 PM, gajewski at isoc.org wrote:
>
> > Dear Joly and John,
> >
> >
> >> Joly: It's not a Chapter. It's an independent Society. In a sovereign
> nation.
> >
> >> John: To the contrary.  They use the ISOC name.
> >
> > The problem is that ISOC does not have an exclusive right to use the
> name "Internet Society" (it is registered as ownership of ISOC only in very
> few countries). World-wide there are several examples of NGOs named "
> 'country name' Internet Society" or "Internet Society of 'country name'"
> which are not Chapters of ISOC...  They named themselves so because
> "Internet Society" is simply a natural name for an NGO related to Internet
> and in most cases they cannot be blamed for uzurpation of ISOC ownership.
> >
> > With best regards,
> > Jacek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120223/58af3900/attachment.htm>