[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

Thu Aug 3 05:44:31 PDT 2017

Vint

Wall Street Journal item, specific, which I made a point of factchecking at
the time. Sally followed with a blog taking similar positions.

The official position seems to have changed, which is why I said "until
recently."

Unfortunately, we've also taken positions that in the real world don't
follow through. In particular, the North American lead said it should be
decided by Congress. I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes the
current Congress would approve anything on NN that is not ok by AT&T,
Verizon, and Comcast.

We've actively opposed Title II, which as you noted might well be the only
way NN is accepted by the courts. (Court decisions are hard to predict, but
your opinion corresponds to most others.)

When I suggested even discussing NN at the U.S. IGF, the leaders said it
was "too controversial."

As far as I know the board never discussed it, but can you think of any
example in the last five years where the board publicly overruled staff?

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:17 AM, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> where is the evidence of ISOC opposition to Net Neutrality??
>
> v
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
>
>> Making ISOC More Bottom-Up (MIMBU) is an informal group, not subject to
>> ISOC central, working in good faith to change the current top-down
>> decisionmaking in ISOC. It's been announced to this list and is open.
>>
>> The chapters have been asking for more than the current symbolic role in
>> making decisions. Kathy and Joyce have done a great job asking for input
>> but all decisionmaking remains with a handful of top staffers. I know it's
>> hard for any bureaucracy to give up control, even if those in charge
>> believe in "bottom-up multistakeholder decisionmaking." (Affirmed at the
>> recent board meeting.)
>>
>> This is about more than the usual issues of power and money.  Said top
>> staffers are honorable people but their beliefs are different than many of
>> the members.
>>
>> For example, until recently ISOC Central has opposed Net Neutrality (per
>> Wall Street Journal,) while our Indian Chapters played an important role in
>> their country's debate.
>>
>> We have also actively opposed, among other issues,
>>
>> Action against the cartel-level backhaul/transit prices, identified by
>> many Africans as the international issue most affecting the domestic cost
>> of access. (WCIT)
>>
>> Doing something about the "unreasonable" levels of royalties, which
>> threaten to double the cost of inexpensive mobiles.
>>
>> Any international agreement on cybersecurity.  (Our policy people resist
>> anything that gives power to governments. They might be right.)
>>
>> Any government-built networks. (Some are unfortunate, like the Australian
>> NBN coming in at double any reasonable cost. Others work well, like Munich
>> and Cologne city nets. They continually rank at the top among German
>> Internet providers. At WCIT, we opposed all of them on principle. We may
>> have softened that stand.)
>>
>> Action to open up the most important standards Group, 3GPP. They are
>> totally corporate controlled, by charter, and make most of the regulations
>> for wireless, the way most of the world is being connected. At a Columbia
>> event attended by Kathy Brown, VInt Cerf recommended doing something about
>> this.
>>
>> and I'm sure others on this list can name other issues where staff has
>> gone beyond what either the membership or the board would approve if asked.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - I cannot find any such group in the list of communities/chapters
>>> etc in
>>> my ISOC system.  The only thing a text search reveals is a link to Box
>>> for
>>> the charter.  Since I cannot create a Box account due to privacy
>>> concerns, I
>>> can't even access that.
>>>
>>> Do you know how many other ISOC groups are in existence, but cannot be
>>> found
>>> in the system?  It seems to me making all active groups findable in the
>>> My
>>> Communities section, especially those members can join, should be the
>>> first
>>> priority for any group who wants to make ISOC more bottom-up.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brandt Dainow
>>> brandt.dainow at gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow
>>> http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch]
>>> Sent: 03 August 2017 11:51
>>> To: brandt.dainow at gmail.com
>>> Cc: 'Eduardo Diaz'
>>> Subject: RE: [Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement
>>>
>>> Dear Brandt,
>>>
>>> It seems to me that your thoughts below regarding the role of chapters in
>>> ISOC should be input to group on Making ISOC More Bottom-Up (MIMBU).
>>>
>>> I copy Eduardo, Chair of that group.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
>>> > bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Brandt Dainow
>>> > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 12:47
>>> > To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement
>>> >
>>> > I think the reaction of many indicates the clause is problematic.  It
>>> > is clearly open to different interpretations.  Many governments are
>>> > antagonistic to "foreign lobbying" and, many governments resent any
>>> > independent civic group which wants a say in policy, often using the
>>> > claim of "foreign influence" as an attack.  Furthermore, ISOC is part
>>> > of a fight against restricting internet access and mass surveillance,
>>> > both of which are actively pursued by many governments.  As a result,
>>> > many local ISOC chapters must be sensitive to the possibility of
>>> > hostile reactions in their countries, and pursue the aims of ISOC in
>>> > less direct fashion than may be possible in places like the USA and
>>> > Europe.  Given that we have seen how this clause can be interpreted as
>>> > directing chapters to lobby on behalf of central (US/EU) office aims,
>>> > it seems prudent to remove it or reword it, and so eliminate the
>>> > possibility it could be used as an attack.  The clause is pointless
>>> > anyway, since all funding has to be a  pplied for and approved
>>> > centrally.
>>> >
>>> > This tension between government policy and ISOC ideals will only get
>>> > worse.  I am not convinced everyone in ISOC has recognised that the
>>> > internet has changed from a technical backbone, running relatively
>>> > distant from society, to a mainstream and central activity at the
>>> > heart of social development in every country on earth.  Every
>>> > organisation - government, commercial, civic, religious, etc., now has
>>> > an interest in the internet and a position on how it should develop.
>>> > Every organisation which seeks power in society, government,
>>> > commercial or otherwise, will try to influence internet policy to their
>>> advantage.
>>> > ISOC now exists as a player in that sphere, something which was not
>>> > the case 15-20 years ago.
>>> >
>>> > This situation will only get more intense over the coming years.   ISOC
>>> > must evolve to keep up.  This means evolving decision and
>>> > policy-making processes so that they become more informed about local
>>> > circumstances, more responsive to local needs and variations, more
>>> politically aware.
>>> > It means ISOC decisions must be informed by a great deal more
>>> > information.  This cannot be achieved by the same number of people as
>>> > currently run most policy development.  Much more of the policy
>>> > decision process needs to be initiated and developed at chapter level,
>>> > where there is detailed local knowledge and more people available.
>>> > And there needs to be more open discussion between chapters, rather
>>> > than the current top-down approach.  This means the chapters need to
>>> > run ISOC.  Chapters should be able to organise policy between
>>> > themselves, then pass it up for central dissemination.  Central
>>> > committees should not be able to initiate discussions of initiatives
>>> > without pre-approval of chapters.  Should a  funding application by a
>>> > chapter be refused, there should be a formal, documented, open
>>> > mechanism for appeal - with adjudication by independent people.
>>> >
>>> > I am sure there are other changes which should be implemented which I
>>> > have not thought of.  However, my central point here is that we need
>>> > to upgrade our processes to allow local intelligence to drive ISOC
>>> policy.
>>> > We can start by removing, or rewording, this problematic clause.  I
>>> > would recommend removing it, because it achieves nothing new and is
>>> > clearly open to arguments over its meaning.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Brandt Dainow
>>> > brandt.dainow at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow
>>> > http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Editor, Fast Net News, WIreless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
>> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
>> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Editor, Fast Net News, WIreless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170803/fc02db4b/attachment.htm>