[Chapter-delegates] FYI - ISOC statement about on Internet blocking measures in Catalonia, Spain

Fri Sep 29 03:16:54 PDT 2017

Thanks for the background.  Please do not mistake my identification of uncertainties as a complaint.  I am not suggested regional or other smaller chapters should not be allowed.  I am concerned the current definitions are unclear and current chapter formation processes are too informal and lack sufficient public record.  I am not suggesting we change what we permit as chapters.  I am suggesting we need to improve the processes by which we create them.  We need to be more formal, more open, and permit wider involvement.   

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

brandt.dainow at gmail.com

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow

From: evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: 28 September 2017 17:14
To: Brandt Dainow
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI - ISOC statement about on Internet blocking measures in Catalonia, Spain

When Glenn and I went to create(*) a Canada Chapter, there was significant pushback since a Québec chapter already existed,

We were asked to come up with a new name for the Chapter. But what?

Central Canada Chapter?

Ontario Chapter? 

Rest of Canada Chapter?

Justin Bieber Chapter?

The problem was that the initial founders were from across Canada except for Quebec, so no regional designation was appropriate (or acceptable to Canadian members of ISOC). "Rest of Canada" is a term that has actually been used domestically, but mostly during times of tension, it's not well-understood outside the country and it sounds weird, so it was avoided,

So ... with the full co-operation and support of the Québec Chapter, the name Canada Chapter was eventually accepted. An informal condition of this  was the  promise that if any other regional chapters within Canada were to be proposed, we would work with them and not impede. The Chapter has since been created and has coexisted -- and occasionally collaborates -- with the Québec Chapter.

Brandt, this level of accommodation by ISOC staff in allowing for concurrent Canada and Québec chapters is a feature and not a bug. One size does not fit all, and the countries in which such regional diversity is most pronounced -- such as Canada, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, South Africa, India and the UK -- have very diverse political and constitutional situations. Some of these have both national and regional chapters, some do not. Flexibility to accommodate differences is not just a strength, but a requirement in a global environment.

The situation in the US in which ALL chapters are regional is far from optimal. The Washington DC Chapter acts as a pseudo national chapter by holding events attended by national policymakers and hosting the American IGF. But also consider that If you are an ISOC member in Texas or Florida or the country's second-largest city (Los Angeles) you have no local chapter and must associate with a distant one or go through the non-trivial task of creating your own.

I occasionally hear talk -- rumour level -- that there may be interest in creating a Cascadia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest>  Chapter that would encompass Seattle and Vancouver. Now *that* -- the idea of a cross-national regional chapter -- intrigues me and I don't think anyone would or should stand in their way should interest be sufficient.

Cheers,

Evan

(*) Actually we didn't "create" the Chapter. There was a dormant nonprofit corporation in Canada based on an earlier attempt to start a Chapter many years previous. Sometimes it seemed like revising the old corporation was harder than creating a new one, but we succeeded....

On 28 September 2017 at 06:09, Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com> wrote:

I think ISOC needs to improve the regulations for creating chapters.

I was surprised to find regional chapters in Spain as well as a Spanish chapter.  The regulations for creating chapters state:

“Multiple Chapters serving overlapping communities are not permitted”

Without commenting on the Catalan referendum in any way, I think most would have assumed the Spanish chapter covered all current Spanish citizens and/or residents.

But the regulations also say:

“A Chapter recognizes, honours, and uses the culture, customs, and language of its community.” – who decides when two communities overlap?

A chapter is supposed to “serve the interests of a segment of the global Internet community” – but what constitutes a “segment” is not defined.

As far as I can see from the chapters map on the website, there is no USA chapter, so the presence of a Washington, New York and other city-based chapters is not an issue.  But most other countries only have a single national chapter, except Spain.

I think the ability to create language-based chapters with the same structure and status as national chapters is significant and creates difficulties, especially as so many countries have multiple language groups.  For example, Ireland has a national policy supporting both Irish and English.  Both are equally official languages, neither above the other.  About 200,000 people in Ireland consider Irish their primary language.  There are some regions designated as Irish-only where English-language signs are forbidden.  Does this mean we can have an Irish-language chapter and an Irish Nation chapter?  If we can have an Irish-language chapter, we must be allowed an English-language chapter, because both languages are considered equal in Irish culture and law.  But would the creation of one mean we would be forced to close the national chapter on the basis that it would overlap?  In the UK, official languages are Welsh, Gaelic (Scotland) and English?  Can we have chapters for each of these language groups?  Cornish is also spoken by a few people in England, can they have a Cornish-language chapter?  How would these members, all British citizens, not be overlapping with the national UK chapter?

Or is this ability to have sub-national chapters based on region?  If so, how big or small does a region have to be to have its own chapter?  Ireland has 5 counties, each with a population of less than 1 million.  Can we have 5 county-level chapters?  Again, as they would overlap with the national chapter, would the creation of a county-level chapter force the closure of the national chapter or would members of that county be forbidden from the national chapter as a way of avoiding overlap?  The USA has 51 states – can we have 51 state-level chapters in the USA?  And would that forbid the creation of a USA chapter to prevent overlap?  And what about cities?  We have city-level chapters in the USA.   If we can have city-level chapters, how small can a town or village be to permit a chapter?  If I live in a village of only 60 people, and they all agree to form a chapter, can we do it?  If we do form a village chapter, would that prevent the larger region around us from forming a chapter so as to avoid overlap?

Or can we have chapters based on the national aspirations of a segment of a national population?  Northern Ireland is a province of the UK in the island of Ireland.  About half the population would like to leave the UK and join Ireland, while the other half would like to remain part of the UK.  Can we have a Northern-Ireland-Joins-Ireland chapter?  What would that do to the UK chapter?

If we allow chapters covering regions or languages whose members could also be considered members of a larger chapter, can we have a men’s-only chapter and a women-only chapter?  Each can be described as having unique issues in the internet.  Or a chapter for priests?  Or a chapter only for famous people (who also have unique internet issues)?  Maybe a chapter for Youtubers or Facebook users?

It seems to me the requirement to avoid overlap and to fail to define a “segment” creates more difficulties than we can solve.  We should get more precise about the basis for creating chapters.

At the same time, these emails seem to indicate some members did not agree with the formation of the Cat chapter. But I cannot find any regulations about the process of approving chapter formation.  Who gets to decide if a chapter application should be approved?  How public is that process?  What is the process for notifying members that a chapter has applied to be formed? What time is allowed for others to protest or make submissions against the formation of that chapter?  What is the procedure for this?  If someone disagrees with the decision to permit or forbid the creation of a chapter, what is the appeals process?  

The current situation in Spain indicates to me that our procedures for chapter formation are inadequate for a world in which politics and social movements are intimately involved with the internet.  I think we need a robust debate leading to a much more transparent, open and clear set of procedures and regulations for chapter formation.  

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

Irish Chapter

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty
Sent: 28 September 2017 02:33
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI - ISOC statement about on Internet blocking measures in Catalonia, Spain

Evan,

facts wrong, opinion wrong, and not asking questions brings with it the sad consequence of not getting answers (but maybe that would be a useless effort, right?) We will all have to rely on the official record now, which fully belies your statements and adjectives.

It is sad that you have chosen an approach so able to add to the divisiveness that this issue has already engendered. 

Alejandro Pisanty

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

It didn't hurt that .CAT's most energetic champion sat on the ICANN Board for four years. The application for .CAT was initiated, coincidentally, very soon after his term on the Board expired.

A casual observer of domains at the time would be astonished that of all the indigenous and distinct cultural societies in the world without their own country, ICANN uniquely sought TLD treatment for this one without any public consultation. The fact that this odd TLD was also grotesquely confusing with a very common English-language word further compounded the puzzle. Whether or not there was any insider preferential treatment going on within ICANN to make .CAT happen, it massively appeared that way from the outside. The delegation made so little logical sense otherwise.

- Evan

_______________________________________________
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

-- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Universidad+3000&entry=gmail&source=g> , 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 <tel:+52%201%2055%204144%204475>  FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 <tel:+52%2055%204144%204475>  DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 <tel:+52%2055%204144%204475> 
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
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

-- 

Evan Leibovitch

Toronto, Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org

Sk: evanleibovitch

Tw: el56

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170929/edf0ce59/attachment.htm>