[Chapter-delegates] How many members do we have?

[Dave Burstein]

All

Andrew notes, accurately, that ISOC's membership should not have been
claimed we had 110,000 members.

*The figure was prominently on our home page, however. *Those closely
involved in ISOC always knew it was inaccurate, but refused to take it off
the home page even after it was brought up and discussed at the top. ISOC
used the claim in advocacy.

The home page also said ISOC was "a trusted source." Trust needs to be
earned, not claimed.

All of us want to be proud of what ISOC is accomplishing. We share the
powerful human trait of "confirmation bias." It is very hard for anyone to
listen to what disagrees with one's own beliefs, including that a group we
are part of is to be admired.

ISOC, almost all of us agree, can and should be doing more to bring a great
Internet to everyone. (We disagree on how to do that, of course.)

To be effective, we need to look honestly at what we are doing. In
practice, those raising problems were told, "you're shouldn't be so
negative," often attacked and shot down.

I'm still here, because I believe ISOC, with a $30M/year subsidy from .org,
has the potential to be the most powerful *pro-consumer* force on the net.
But I've watched for several years as those who agreed, and supported
issues like more chapter funding got burned out and left.

I knew Kathy for years as one of the most progressive in D.C. circles and
expected her to do much more. I know several of the board members to be
hardworking, articulate, concerned, and of good faith. I know the same is
true of Andrew.

Can we be honest with ourselves and do better? 75% of the Internet is not
in the U.S., Western Europe, and allies. China alone is 40% and their
achievements remarkable. (344M have fiber home connections.) I am not naive
about the Chinese government, but we can never be truly effective
organizing the Internet without including them, as well as the many others
not well-represented here.
------------

Unfortunately, Andrew is wrong that we now have

an admittedly smaller list of confirmed and clearly engaged members.
>

I wish that were true. But I know in New York the majority of our "members"
are nothing more than people who have agreed to be on a mailing list. I
don't think we've had a meeting with even 75 of our "2,500" members in at
least the last 5 years. The maximum number of people who have done *anything
at all* is perhaps 400, and very few of them are "clearly engaged."

Which I, Andrew, and many others are working to improve.

Dave
(Who would much rather be discussing the right radios for rural Africa or
the unhyped prospects of 5G, rather than wasting time in what should be
unneeded organizational problems. If we become the "bottom-up
multi-stakeholder organization" Kathy wanted us to be, we would be doing a
much better job delivering what we all believe in.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20181211/02e52238/attachment.htm>