[Chapter-delegates] Reporter's request re: CEO resignation

[Joly MacFie]

I concur with Patrik. at the 2013 WCIT ISOC did a very good job, at a
crucial moment in Internet History, of bringing together a coalition in
support of the continuing independence of the Internet's Management
processes and the multistakeholder model.

Similarly, as I recall it, the reason that the ISC is not an ISOC Chapter
is that they are not an independent body, and thus were not eligible back
in the day. Which is not to say we don't have engagement with them.

The recent induction of Jianping Wu to the Internet Hall of Fame did
receive press coverage.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-09/20/c_136623358.htm - his
acceptance speech can be viewed here. https://youtu.be/hac_72JtKCI

joly

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> On 28 Dec 2017, at 17:47, Dave Burstein wrote:
>
> >> Two other milestones under Kathy that have been mentioned is WCIT (with
> >> supporting meetings) in ITU and the IANA Transition process run by ICANN
> >> (with supporting meetings). Of these I think ISOC was very successful
> and
> >> necessary in the WCIT process while I had wanted ISOC to be more active
> in
> >> the IANA transition -- although Kathy personally and ISOC as an
> >> organisation was all along the strongest supporters possible. And
> >> ultimately some key letters and messages where sent by ISOC (and signed
> by
> >> Kathy) in the transition.
> >>
> >
> > ​I was at WCIT and followed IANA. I can't recall any imortant ISOC
> proposals that went beyond U.S. gov, as discussed on this list. Did I miss
> any?
>
> What I think has been important is that at WCIT ISOC did rise issues,
> specifically on the floor, that was 100% inline with what is the best for
> the Internet. Whether that was against or not the US Gov is in fact hard to
> say as the discussions where somewhat different depending on whether you
> did talk with DoD, State or DoC.
>
> What was clear was that ISOC together with a few others did not change a
> fraction of an inch even if some parties tried to move to a negotiation
> mode.
>
> > In fact, I can't think of *any* ISOC policy proposals that contradicted
> White House policy in recent years. Can you?
> >
> > Which I consider the heart of things here.
>
> Why is it important ISOC was against the White House?
>
> I see it as important ISOC was against the White House as ISOC was against
> any other Capital in the world. And we do know ISOC was against certain
> influential people in Washington, for example this letter that was pretty
> important I claim:
>
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2016/
> support-for-the-timely-transition-of-iana-stewardship/>
>
> > Also re: On the Chapters' level, there is an important achievement that
> happened during Kathy's leadership is the approval of the Chapters Advisory
> Council.   So far ChAC is now part of the ISOC structure and the more
> chapters get their voices heard and discussed in this body, the more
> influence the ChAC will have on the governance of ISOC.
> >
> > The most important proposal from the chapters council, the 3% for
> chapters and some independent decisionmaking, was completely rejected by
> ISOC is a closed meeting. This contradicts almost everything we claim to
> represent.
> > It was also stupid.
>
> I don't care of the monetary support. I just talked about the creations of
> the SIGs/Chapters.
>
>    Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20171228/5c1228c4/attachment.htm>