[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

Thu Aug 3 07:56:02 PDT 2017

I have not found WSJ to be particularly reliable.

Congress does need to weigh in with a new Internet title that preserves NN
but does not rest on the complexity of Title II.

v

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:

> 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/c2729004/attachment.htm>