[Chapter-delegates] Alejandro's question and where does ISOC stand on meaning of Montevideo?

Fri Nov 1 04:14:24 PDT 2013

The UK chapter participated in PITFORs Parliament & Internet conference
at Westminster yesterday. Many members including several local
organisational members were actively engaged.

The Minister (Ed Vaizey) confirmed the UKs commitment to the open multi
stakeholder process. There was some criticism in the room on the
Montevideo statement.  I think mainly directed on potential for
increasing instability in governance arena. There was a sense of urgency
to engage on the issues into 2014 that I've not seen before.

The minister agreed publicly to include me in dialogue between Ministers
on "What's next for IPv6 in the UK". (A consultation I've been running
over the last month and now broadening). This might also provide an
opportunity to see what questions they have for the technical
community.  It might be timely for other chapters to also sound out
their ministries and or officials.

With so much going to be on in London in 2014 maybe this is an
opportunity to bring some of the threads together?

best

Christian  
> Dave Burstein <mailto:daveb at dslprime.com>
> 1 November 2013 02:30
> I asked for Lynn or Markus to explain to ISOC members and chapters
> what's going on because I don't know despite following diligently. She
> signed the Montevideo Declaration in our name and we need an
> explanation of what ISOC signed on to. I'm not criticizing ISOC
> signing - my guess is it's a good thing - but trying to understand
> what this means.
>
>   The Montevideo Declaration, the speeches by Fadi of ICANN and other
> leaders, and what I hear both publicly and privately are seriously
> confused and sometimes contradictory. That's why I'm asking for
> clarity. This is important stuff.
>
>   Most dramatically, Fadi's comment "The Affirmation of Commitments
> needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US
> Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you' seems to be an
> attempt to end the U.S. (nominal, lightly exercised) control over
> ICANN. ISOC had a very strong presence against such a change
> throughout last year and WCIT in Dubai.
>   There is much more in Montevideo and ISOC leadership speeches that
> can be understood in different ways. I'm organizing a webinar for
> Columbia University a week from Tuesday on this subject (details
> below) and have been in touch with several of the principal people.
> Most are being very coy and several seem to me not to be sure themselves. 
>
>     Lynn, Markus - please help us understand what ISOC is doing here.
>
> Dave Burstein
>
> Topic: Is there a third way for the Internet? 
> Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 
> Time: 12:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time (New York, GMT-05:00) 
> Meeting Number: 731 150 813 
> Meeting Password: (This meeting does not require a password.) 
>
> p.s. Since someone asked. I mentioned that in the discussions on the
> U.S. State Department International Telecommunications Advisory
> Committee (ITAC), with many senior people involved, there didn't seem
> much more clarity than elsewhere. I mentioned that just to illustrate
> how little information was accessible even to insiders. ITAC is open
> to everyone incidentally, as affirmed by the department head
> testifying to Congress. Because that's an important symbol of
> "multi-stakeholderism," over the last year they have accepted everyone
> who asks to be included. U.S. citizenship is not even required.
> Memberships means you will be buried in email - half a dozen today -
> but included are all the main ITU documents and other interesting
> stuff. At a meeting today, I pushed for the U.S. to put those ITU
> documents 
>
>     If you want to join, email me offlist and I'll connect you.
>
> Some of my related reporting 
>
>
>   Terry Kramer's Remarkable Opening of the U.S. State Department
>
> Multi-Stakeholder meaningless if stakeholders all corporate
> By joining ITAC - free and open to all - you can be a meaningful part
> of the process and have impact on U.S. policy. All the big tech
> companies - Microsoft, Cisco, Google, AT&T, Verizon and two dozen more
> - use the ITAC meetings and mailings to have a say. Over 100
> independents are getting the once secret documents of the ITU, regular
> briefings from Ambassador Terry Kramer and top State officials (Dick
> Brainerd included) and questions answered. 
>
>    With Kramer’s encouragement, I and Mike Masnick at Techdirt
> publicized how to join and the response was remarkable. Three
> prominent professors, a former board member of ICANN and many more
> signed up. ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré at Columbia pointed
> out ITAC as an ideal example of how governments can get all ITU
> documents to their citizens.
>
>    Terry’s likely to move on after December and the State Department
> staff will take back control. These include the same people who a few
> years ago set a firm U.S. opinion that civil society not play a role
> at ITU. Far too often, I found myself in discussions where I was the
> only voice outside government that was not corporate. With luck, the
> success of Kramer’s actions has changed their opinions and they will
> stay effectively open going forward.
>
>
>     A Modest Proposal to Open ITU to All Civil Society
>
> A Modest Proposal 1729 CoverHamadoun Touré at Columbia made clear he
> wants more involvement at ITU, but it's an international organization
> that moves slowly. The Internet Society can easily speed things up if
> they had the courage. 
>  I wrote to the ISOC list
>
> Folks
>
>     Allowing all ISOC members active in civil society to join the ISOC
> delegation to WCIT and other ITU events would quickly and effectively
> resolve the issue of limited civil society involvement. ITU members,
> including ISOC, have total discretion about who is on their
> delegation. Hamadoun Touré has actively encouraged members such as the
> U.S. to include in their delegation civil society. Speaking to Touré,
> I believe he sees a political advantage to expanding civil society. 
>
>    The U.S. delegation currently numbers 115. The Nigerians are
> sending 70. ISOC only is sending 8. There's no reason not to expand
> the delegation. Only a limited number of civil society representatives
> will have the money and time. I'd bet we could include just about all
> of them and still have a modest sized delegation. 
>
>    I suggest ISOC immediately put out word that "any civil society
> representative who has been personally active supporting the causes of
> the ISOC mission" is welcome to be included in the delegation. Current
> non-members can simply and instantly join. Those active in ISOC like
> Veni, Alejandro, and Joly would also be a strong addition.. 
>
>  
>    Of course it's more cumbersome to coordinate a larger mission. But
> it establishes an important principle of how meetings like WCIT should
> be inclusive. The main objection I foresse is "that's not the way we
> do things." It could be. 
>
>  
>
> http://netpolicynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40&Itemid=124
> <http://netpolicynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40&Itemid=124>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Shreedeep Rayamajhi <mailto:weaker41 at gmail.com>
> 31 October 2013 04:22
> Communication at all levels must be maintained clear and strategic
> according to need. I hope the New Chapter Advisory council will be
> able to make things more easy
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Norbert Klein <mailto:nhklein at gmx.net>
> 31 October 2013 02:54
> +1
>
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Pornphisud Mongknonvanit <mailto:pornphisud at gmail.com>
> 31 October 2013 00:50
> +1
>
> Pornphisud Mongkhonvanit
> ISOC Thailand
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <mailto:apisan at unam.mx>
> 30 October 2013 14:41
> +1
>
> A very good description of our plight as chapters.
>
> Let us also make sure that the Chapter Advisory Council, if we do get
> to build it, is a useful tool for two-way communications, and does not
> become one more indirection layer, one more obstruction.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> ________________________________________
> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
> [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Christian de
> Larrinaga [cdel at firsthand.net]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 30 de octubre de 2013 02:02
> Hasta: anupam agrawal
> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates; amanoff at vmf.com.ar
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Alejandro's question and where does
> ISOC stand on meaning of Montevideo?
>
> You may have misunderstood but I'm not answering for Dave as he is more
> than capable of doing that directly.
>
> As I see this ISOC made a bold assertion in Montevideo as did other
> Internet related organisations.It is not clear though how this wording
> was arrived at nor what the implications or intentions are, if any to do
> about it.
>
> Chapters have a shared responsibility for both electing Trustees but
> also unlike other constituents IETF and organisations a hands on role to
> promote the ISOC mission. So far we have not been involved in either the
> formulation of the Montevideo statement nor in any formulation of what
> happens next. This makes our position locally in representing ISOC on
> this issue tough. Actually being out of the loop on this makes the
> chapter appear irrelevant to ISOC.
>
> I am not saying the statement was wrong but I am saying that ISOC does
> need to include its chapters now. This cannot wait for new ISOC board
> elections. We need to be engaged urgently.
>
> In UK we have two events this week. The Internet & Parliament conference
> and the Open Government Partnership that is bringing a number of
> "member" governments and assorted civil society experts together to
> discuss open government. We can participate as ISOC chapter but are at
> this time are almost entirely blind to offer any policy guidance of the
> background and intentions following this very hot and important
> re-framing statement made in Montevideo.
>
> That is a worrying gap in ISOC communications.
>
>
>
> Christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
>