[Chapter-delegates] ISOC nominees must discuss ISOC's exclusion, financial support for chapters, board independence, finding waste

Tue Sep 17 02:09:21 PDT 2019

Hi Dave

I would've liked it if your posting included more suggestions of how we
could do things better, and perhaps some citations. I think that because we
already deal with quite a lot of diversity, it's always important to
explain everything from scratch every time (or provide a link) - this gives
exactly those who are left behind, an opportunity to get up to speed easier
- which in turn improves diversity by bringing more people to the same
table.

While some of the things you mention could be symptoms of bad institutional
environment, it could also be symptoms of good governance - something that
we rarely see - but that would be quite refreshing to see, right? More
information and more considered discussion will be able to help us
determine which it is.

It took me a long time to "accept" the status quo - in fact - not by
"accepting" it, but rather by building the solution that i would like to
see - and in building that solution, I have come to realize how long things
can take - and perhaps, just as importantly, how destructive it can be if
you don't do it right, or if you allow for shortcuts that can be taken
advantage of.

So in a sense I share your frustration - at the gaps - and opportunities -
and mostly the time it takes and why someone haven't done it better yet -
and many of us work deeply in this - and share these frustrations.

My focus is on building "short-cuts" that are harder to exploit than the
current way of doing things, through automation and sensing. So not really
short-cuts - but just a more efficient way of doing thigns in the first
place. I think a big reality of the areas we work in, is poor literacy - as
in actual literacy, but that also extends to financial, administative and
technical literacy - and I have to ask myself: Am I doing people a
disservice by automating away the need for them to be literate, so they can
build connectivity and access technology more easily - or am I making it
easier for them to become literate on their own terms, by removing some of
the friction caused by traditional ways of teaching literacy - eg. that of
having a literate person at hand, who holds a balance of power over them,
on whom they are solely dependent, to gain literacy - by helping them gain
direct access to electricity, and technology such as cheap fast bandwidth
that can provide access to video, through which literacy can be
incentivised more easily.

I think the reality is that these are hard problems, and *most of those who
are trying to solve them, don't understand them* and very few have
experienced it themselves - but this is what is changing - because of the
shift you mention, more and more of those connected do experience this, and
as a result of that, things will start happening more quickly. Our biggest
risk then, in my opinion, is *polarisation* - being overrun by people who
think that everything is free and easy, and who see anyone who stands in
their way as a problem, and perhaps this is something that - even though it
may not seem relevant yet, is something that should demand time and
resources right away - (maybe it is? I've had more pressing problems to
deal with than to look at this.)

My points are:
- Things are moving along - more switftly than is immediately visible
- Things do take time
- The more diverse, the more things to consider - the more time
- Time is good - it gives people an opportuntity to get up to speed. Short
deadlines can exclude people and lead to division.
- There are many opportunities - and many people working on those - and
those most in need usually have the least support. We can always be more
attentive.
- We can always do more - but we need to be careful because there's much
more at play and that needs to be considered
- We should question and improve, but in an approachable manner that will
unify us in our search for better
- Whats better for one, is often worse for another - even more reason to be
really careful and considered, and make as few assumptions as possible

This not only affects ISOC, but the world in general - and I love the work
that Gapminder is doing about that - I hope everyone has seen
https://www.gapminder.org/test/ - I am sure there are similar organization,
and a lot to learn from them. Are we?

I also think that there are many of us here who have been on mailing lists
for decades... that might be able to give commentary on this: Would it be
useful if we could classify emails into 3 or 4 main groupings? Eg.
A) Hi, I can do x and I am ready to do it
B) Hi, I can do x but I need y. Where can I find y?
C) Hi, I don't think enough people have seen z. Have you seen z? What do
you think? Is this the right place to discuss it, or is there somewhere
else that we should discuss it?
D) Hi, FYI: here is something interesting or related to z. Is this the
right place to discuss it, or is there somewhere else that we should
discuss it?
E) Hi, the place to discuss this is at this link, please consult the
guide/directory here before posting.

Almost every email I've ever read seems to be able to fit into one of these
- and it seems like a super generic way to build up a database of
resources, the like of which would be super useful for self-coordination...?

In that sense, your email would be C. Most of the responses would be D or
E. And - thank you for sharing it, and prompting me to think and respond. I
hope I shared something of use.

Regards

Op Di. 17 Sep. 2019 om 09:55 het Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> geskryf:

> Dear Dave,
>
>
>
> While I agree with the gist of what you say below, I can think of at least
> two instances in which ISOC policies are not aligned with US policies:
> encryption and data protection/privacy.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Chapter-delegates [mailto:
> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave Burstein
> via Chapter-delegates
> *Sent:* mardi, 17. septembre 2019 05:19
> *To:* ISOC Chapter Delegates; Christine Saegesser
> *Subject:* [Chapter-delegates] ISOC nominees must discuss ISOC's
> exclusion, financial support for chapters, board independence, finding waste
>
>
>
> Folks
>
> I'm putting myself forward for the nomcom because I believe that all
> trustees should *address* the biggest issues in ISOC: exclusion, chapter
> support, independent review, US government ties, and financial waste.
>
>
>
> *I am not saying anyone should be excluded for her views, merely that they
> explain them publicly as part of the process. *
>
>
>
> ISOC has a $30M annual subsidy from .org. We can and should be the most
> active organization ensuring the Internet is for everyone. It's worth
> fighting for.
>
>
>
> I would seek opinions on issues including:
>
>
>
> *Should the majority of the Internet be effectively excluded from the ISOC
> board and leadership?* Asia, Africa, and Latin America - the global south
> - now have twice as many Internet users as the US and allies in the global
> north. (See The Color Of The Net Has Changed
> <https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1015-the-color-of-the-net-has-changed>)
> India now has more Internet users than the US; China, about three times as
> many. 7 of 12 trustees are from the US and Canada. Only two of the twelve
> are from the global south. China is 25%-40% of the net, depending on the
> measure. The total exclusion of China is an unacknowledged policy. The
> Internet is for everyone?
>
>
>
> *Should the chapters have 3-10% of ISOC's budget? *ISOC has lost ~70% of
> our members the last few years, according to our web site. Most chapters
> have only a handful of active members if that. It's time to stop starving
> the chapters.
>
>
>
> *Should the board be independent?* In the last 8 years, I have not seen
> any evidence that the board is supervising ISOC. I can't think of any time
> the board has overruled the CEO, who runs a top-down organization.
>
>
>
> *Should ISOC be part of the "DC consensus" or is the Global South
> sometimes right?* In 2018, I reviewed six years of ISOC international
> policy and did not find a single instance where ISOC disagre4ed with the US
> government position. I asked the CEO and the VP of policy and they had no
> examples either. Some of the issues that divided the north and the south
> were the cartel-like pricing of Internet backhaul and transport and the
> non-payment of taxes by the multilateral giants. I don't think the US was
> right on either.
>
>
>
> *Should the board look for waste in ISOC? *We all know there is a great
> deal of unnecessary spending.
>
>
>
> --------------
>
> I will be happy to step aside if others step up for these issues. Again,
> I'm not insisting that board candidates agree with my positions, merely
> that the candidates make clear what they believe.
>
>
>
> I doubt I will be selected because the leadership of ISOC wants a
> harmonious society.
>
>
>
> But here are some credentials:
>
> I have been a chapter officer since 2011 in New York.
>
> I have been active in Internet policy for 15 years. I am a member of the
> ITU Focus Group 2030, which is setting the guidelines for 6G. I've written
> a book on DSL, another on web video, and am wrapping up a book on 5G. I am
> on the US State Department International Telecommunications Advisory
> Committee (where I often am in a minority of one or two on north-south
> issues.)
>
>
>
> I've written about the Internet internationally since 1999. My work has
> been quoted by the *NY Times, WSJ, & Washington Post.* I've attended
> major ITU meetings including the WCIT and the plenipot, paying my own
> expenses. I've interviewed the current and previous ITU Secretary Generals
> and most of the major ITU officials.
>
>
>
> I've volunteered in two community networks, which I continue to support,
> as well as numerous coops and community groups. I've done many Wikipedia
> edits.
>
> blah, blah, blah
>
> Do take a look at wirelessone.news, fastnet.news, and netpolicynews.com
> to see the quality of my work.
>
> ------
>
>
>
> I believe everyone in policy should make clear where their money comes
> from. I earn my living writing about the Internet, broadband including
> wireless. I've had no financial ties with any of the carriers or advocacy
> organizations for since I did some consulting for bell canada a decade ago.
>
>
>
> I am paid by, and sell advertising to, numerous manufacturers in telecom
> and accept expenses to events. I write analytic reports on topics like 5G
> strategies for independent groups like STL Partners, who in turn work with
> many carriers.
>
>
>
> I'm on good personal terms with many at all the companies, trade groups,
> regulators including the FCC, some ISOC and ICANN board members, and even a
> number of lobbyists. My main work is with the technical community. I do my
> best to represent the public interest, even if it undermines my friends'
> positions.
>
> ---------------------
>
>
>
> ISOC has a mission to bring the Internet to everyone. We can do it better.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> 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. (2
> or 3/month)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>

-- 
Coenraad Loubser

W.I.S.H. (Pty) Ltd.
6 Spin Street, Cape Town, 8001, ZA

Office: +27 21 565 0145
Skype: Coenraad_Loubser
Email: coenraad at wish.org.za
Cell: +27 73 772 1223
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20190917/d9d81a45/attachment.htm>