[Chapter-delegates] Is Gonzalo right we are not multi-stakeholder?

[Dave Burstein]

Vint, Steve, Tony
cc'd because I'm suggesting below you will be the first to defend
multi-stakeholder at ISOC, whatever you think of PIR.

Gonzalo

Thanks for engaging. I know it's hard to stay active when so many people on
the Internet are saying you made a very bad decision. I've publicly
disagreed with the commentators who called you a crook.I know you are not.

I wish you had done what Andrew did, saying simply "We are a
multi-stakeholder organization." (We can discuss elsewhere just what that
means.)

You can and you should swallow your pride and make a simple statement, that
ISOC is a multi-stakeholder organization. If you say you don't want to
discuss the matter while a court case may be pending, say so. I'll assume
that means you will support multi-stakeholder as soon as PIR is not an
issue.

I've said more than enough about PIR. I'm talking here about the nature of
ISOC, especially now we may have a $billion endowment.

You're right that the statue does not require us to be a multi-stakeholder
or membership organization, which may be relevant in the Pennsylvania court
case. But the statue merely sets basic requirements. An organization can go
further in defining itself, unless that conflicts with the statue.

But the Internet Society can and has decided to be multi-stakeholder. This
has been said by every official and board member I've heard in the
eight years I've been active. CEO Kathy Brown said it at a board meeting
you attended, I believe. If I'm remembering correctly, you have said the
same thing.

It's been said dozens of times in official ISOC publications and on our web
pages. We have said it when soliciting members. I  think I remember it in
an ITU filing. It was taken for granted in almost every relevant
discussion. I've discussed it easily a dozen times with ISOC officials; we
disagreed on what it meant, perhaps, but no one disputed that we are
multi-stakeholder.

We paid Larry Strickling $200,000 dollars for work explaining why how
important multi-stakeholder is. Andrew testified before Congress and I
believe said there how important multi-stakeholder is.

IANAL, and I don't know if the repeated commitments by our CEO, Board
Chair, and official documents require us by law to be multi-stakeholder.
Our expensive lawyers think that the Pennsylvania court will not require us
to go further than the statue. It's irrelevant to PIR at this point,
because any litigation on the subject wouldn't be settled in time to affect
PIR.

But everyone in ISOC has believed we are multi-stakeholder, by our own
choice if not under the statue. If you think that should be changed, bring
it to the Board and the community. If you did, and PIR is settled, I'd hope
Vint Cerf, Steve Crocker, Tony Rutkowski, and our other founders will be
the first to shoot it down.

Incidentally, I believe you have questioned whether multi-stakeholder is
right, possibly in another event. You may have misspoken. So clarify your
opinion now, please.

Should the Internet Society be multistakeholder, which you say might
require future Board approval?

Please say yes.

Dave Burstein


On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Gonzalo Camarillo <
gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> > However, Gonzalo, the Board Chair, said we are not
> > multistakeholder. "We might consider that in the future."
> >
> > I hope someone makes clear to Gonzalo that multistakeholder is right.
>
> Please, go back to the recordings or to the transcript if you are
> interested in what I *actually* said ;-) I did not express any opinion
> on whether the current model is "right" or wrong. I just explained
> what the current model looks like.
>
> What I said is that the governance of ISOC is defined in the bylaws
> and was agreed with the community. There is a board of trustees, who
> is elected or selected by chapters, orgs, and the IETF. I am not sure
> whether or not you consider that model to be a multistakeholder model.
>
> In any case, we can certainly discuss changes to the governance model
> at some point. However, we should keep those more-general discussions
> separate from the current discussions about PIR. Also, those
> discussions need to involve the whole community. For instance, last
> time the governance was changed, the org members agreed to reduce the
> number of trustees they could appoint (from six to four) so that
> chapters could also appoint the same number of trustees (four).
>
> In addition, as I also mentioned in the call, lately I have been
> discussing with the chairs of the OMAC and of the ChAC how to get the
> community more involved in the Nomcom process by having the ACs be,
> in turn, more involved in looking for volunteers to serve in the
> Nomcom every year.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>


-- 
Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news> https://wirelessone.news
<http://wirelessone.news>
Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20191130/8a16ba7d/attachment.htm>