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

Fri Sep 29 03:16:54 PDT 2017

Hi and thanks for this response.

While it provides some useful background, I do not think it addresses any of the uncertainties in the current process.  In fact, I think it introduces new problems.  

1)      While the process of consulting the existing chapters in Spain is to be supported, the creation of a chapter in one country may have implications for other countries because it sets a precedent.  There is an expectation that ISOC rules apply equally to all parts of the world.  If you allow one country to create a chapter covering a region or other sub-group within that country, this can be used to create to justify doing the same in other countries.  We have seen the level of dispute in Spain over this, but a similar situation in other countries could lead to physical violence.  It seems to me this requires that all ISOC chapters be permitted the opportunity to object to the formation of any chapter anywhere in the globe.  I note that the IoT SIG has published – in advance – all the documents related to formation and instituted a process for responses.  Their process seems reasonable, and I think it should be the minimum required process for the formation of any chapter or SIG.

2)      Secondly, there have been no formal or public documents available for others to see this consultation process you claim to have undertaken.  Is there a record of who attended and in what capacity?  Is there a record of minutes of these meetings?  Were people’s positions documented?  While I do not suggest any dishonest practice, the lack of formal public records allows others to claim the process was biased and unfair, as we have seen.  The only defence against such claims is a public record and a formal process.  Furthermore, if such records were kept, ISOC would have the ability to review previous decisions and learn how to avoid mistakes which only emerge later.

I understand that you have done your best to follow existing practice in ISOC.  My concern is that existing practice allows for inconsistency, uncertainty and does not offer adequate records or consultation processes for today’s world.  I have highlighted the concerns I see in the current process, and believe ISOC needs to completely rebuild the process for creating chapters to address these issues.

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

brandt.dainow at gmail.com

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

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

From: Joyce Dogniez [mailto:dogniez at isoc.org] 
Sent: 28 September 2017 16:59
To: brandt.dainow at gmail.com; 'ISOC Chapter Delegates'
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI - ISOC statement about on Internet blocking measures in Catalonia, Spain

Dear Brandt,

Please allow me to clarify a couple of things here as we are entering a discussion beyond the issue at hand.

Chapters are formed by our community and are made up of members in a geographical area to carry out ISOC’s mission. In some countries, the community decided and applied to set up city based chapters, state, province or national Chapters. It varies widely depending on the region. 

In some cases the community has applied to form multiple chapters in a country to better address their local community needs. 

We actually have quite a few models depending on what the local/national or even regional need is. 

For example we have Quebec (the Province of) and Canada; we have 5 soon to be 6 city based Chapters in India (they collaborate informally when they want to address national issues); we have quite a few city based Chapter in APAC (Pakistan Islamabad Chapter, Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter and a few more) where the community felt the country was too vaste to really engage at local level with members. In the US we have a mix of State (e.g. North Carolina) of city (Washington DC) or even ‘sub’ region (e.g. San Francisco Bay area)  based Chapters.

We (ISOC staff) meet with the Chapters in a given country when possible to encourage collaboration and to see how to best identify common or different issue.

In the case of Spain, we actually had a meeting with all the Spanish Chapters last year during the Chapter Workshop in Madrid and had a very constructive discussion. 

The current political situation in Spain related to the referendum and the internet related measures has really nothing to do with the way our Chapters are formed as we always do this in a collaborative approach trying to adapt to the local needs and the process includes a full Chapter peer review.  

We are obviously always available to receive feedback or input on how to improve this process and I’m sure the Chapters Advisory Council could be a good vehicle for this kind of discussion.

Warm regards 

Joyce

From: Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> on behalf of Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "brandt.dainow at gmail.com" <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 12:09
To: "chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI - ISOC statement about on Internet blocking measures in Catalonia, Spain

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, 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
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170929/21682dc4/attachment.htm>