[Chapter-delegates] Raul's in New York tonight. What are the right questions?

[Dave Burstein]

ISOC folks

I should have sent this earlier. But if you get me questions before 7, I'll
pass them on.

New York folks

Simple questions to help fit into the allotted time. I sent a note
previously that covered too much.


   - What can ISOC do for the 98% not likely to be reached by community
   networks?
   - What are the *international* issues affecting access where ISOC can
   make a difference?
   - How do we get ISOC on track to allow the chapters to have funds to
   allocate themselves, with sensible oversight?
   - Should we focus on issues where we can make a difference or continue
   to focus on issues that already have strong advocates?
   - How can we have clear policy recommendations that members can judge?
   - Should ISOC be a global organization?


A little clarification.

Access (to me the most important issue)

What can ISOC do for the 98% not likely to be reached by community networks?
*CNs are good and I've volunteered for two. 95+% of the world won't be
reached by CNs for a long time. We need a strategy for the great majority. *

What are the *international* issues affecting access where ISOC can make a
difference?
*I'm on a U.S. State Department committee which makes recommendations that
mostly tell other countries what to do domestically. The folks in D.C.
frankly know much less than the folks who have connected well over a
billion new users. *
*    My take is to focus on issues that need international consensus,
including royalties, backhaul/transit, regulation of giant multi-nationals.*

*Strengthening the chapters*

How do we get ISOC on track to allow the chapters to have funds to allocate
themselves, with sensible oversight?
*Two years ago, a majority of board members spoke in favor of allowing
chapters to allocate a (very small) part of ISOC's budget. (Initially, 3%.)
The board requested the chapters committee make a concrete proposal and we
worked for 6 months. Everyone approved. *
*      It died in a closed session of the board, without any meaningful
explanation. *

How do we bring multi-stakeholder decisionmaking and diverse opinions to
ISOC?
*This has been promised at least since 2012. We talk a good game but
decisions are made by a few people at the top.*

*Policy*

Should we focus on issues where we can make a difference or continue to
focus on issues that already have strong advocates?
*Most of our policy work reinforces powerful factions that don't need our
help. There are plenty already working on Net Neutrality, for example. Our
ITU proposals seem to go little further than the U.S. and Western Europe. *

How can we have clear policy recommendations that members can judge?
*Russia and Saudi Arabia support "multi-stakeholder" and "open Internet."
So do Verizon and Donald Trump. Unless we make clear how our proposals are
different from those, these buzzwords are pr tools. *
*    A well thought out policy recommendation should contain enough
specifics that we can test it against facts, not just rhetoric.*

Should ISOC be a global organization?
*More than 1/3rd of the Internet is totally excluded and many others -
including our chapters in the global South - are rarely involved in making
decisions.*
*   The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) now have more
Internet users than the U.S. and Western Europe combined. The gap is
growing by millions each month. *

At minimum, we should stop recommending "multi-stakeholder" until we
implement it ourselves. We shouldn't claim to be "global" until we have
most major camps included.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20180305/669da7ea/attachment.htm>