[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] Action Plan 2021 - Fwd: Our Commitment to the Internet / Notre engagement en matière d’Internet / Nuestro Compromiso con Internet

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Thank you for your very welcome response. Excuse my top posting but I
don't want to create a tangle. 

So let me layer the points into "top" "mid" and "community - bottom up" layers.

Starting from the bottom and specifically chapters. This document sets
out a series of ambitions and regionalises those into distinct
activities. But no mention is made in the Action plan on specific
measures relating to chapters to implement or support those activities.

It is after all an external facing summary document. So the detail is
not expected in it, which is why in part I wrote to this list rather
than reply on the Policy list. 

But some detail hopefully is being developed?

I am aware that chapter can apply for admin help so they can ensure they fulfill
the formalities ISOC has required. Yes there are Foundation grants for
chapter projects and activities. And of chapters are free to seek funds
locally as well. So none of this should imply chapters are dependent
entirely on ISOC finance to exist or achieve their own missions.

The point here is how to implement what is in reality a shared - even
joint mission - and in particular ISOC's global plan.

That is I don't see the joins if any are intended between the ISOC activities in the Action plan
with those of chapters. How can Chapters respond, engage, as well as contribute
to future plans in the Action plan and the key projects being developed is perhaps
a clearer way to summarise the question?

>From the "mid" layer. Maybe this is in fact a symptom of the "bottom
layer" I mention above. Chapters and possibly other constituent parts of
the community are not very aware or engaged in ISOC projects. I like
Fred was not aware of what Mat Ford is now up to with the new
measurement project. (Great stuff!) I suppose there is no urgent reason
for me to be actively aware. 

But on a very simple level it is not possible to plan ahead or even write up
a page or link on a chapter information network service to usefully
engage local communities in such great ideas if one does not know  or
one has no planning or "hooks" with those projects to make a useful contribution.


Looking at the "top" layer.

There is a dotted line fiduciary duty of constituent parties
such as trustees or board members of electors of ISOC trustees or organisations promoting ISOC
activities to show some basic due diligence that ISOC is well governed.

For that to happen needs a degree of information and understanding of how
ISOC is being governed. In particular how the relationships and finance
flows and decision responsibilities are working between the various
moving parts. The main ones are now PIR, ISOC and the ISOC
Foundation. Maybe there are others too? In anycase

To give a very basic example. Looking at ISOC's plan the figures might
imply a question whether PIR has divided
up its revenue contributions between ISOC and the Foundation? or is it
still flowing to ISOC directly which then allocates it onwards?

This is not to say that chapters or others have a role to play in the
making of such decisions in an executive or trustee capacity but that
they should be aware of the processes, participants, and agenda. 

Also I cannot be sure if there are gaps in the Action plan? 

A hugely significant and most welcome grant has just been awarded by ISOC to the IETF. But I
don't see that mentioned in the Action plan or its budget. 

Indeed that rather dwarfs the $10m allocation in the 2021 budget to
other items.

Maybe that has come via the Foundation? Thank you for the link. I will
try to find a moment to read through that over the next week or two. 

There is a lot more to say and consider in the sustaining and inter
relationship of Community Networks, backhaul, IXPs and other ISPs in
particular  "incumbents" but  for another time.

Very interested to learn that there are gaps in training provision that
has led ISOC to do front facing work as well as train the trainers.

On working with allies, partners and such (as with WF).

Maybe project info might have a paragraph or a section of refs with
links to those entities and contacts ready to be mentioned in chapters
own materials for their local communities?



cheers C





Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:36:15PM +0000, Christian de Larrinaga via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>
>>It is good to see the education program continuing to grow in 
>>ambition. I am wondering though that as the numbers being reached is 
>>still in the low hundreds for 2021.
>
> There is more than one program, but I agree the numbers in each case are modest.  I will note that several of the programs are intended to be "train the trainer" efforts so that the scaling effect I think you're suggesting can be greater.
>
>>Would it be something to consider for 2022 and beyond whether ISOC 
>>might pivot to develop its training materials to be repurposed within 
>>training materials by the thousands of training organisations around 
>>the world?
>
> Some people have repurposed some of our materials already in this way.  What we find sometimes, however, is that some organizations who want to do such training are actually not able to do it, which is part of why we're working so hard to re-boot our own training efforts to be more effective.
>
>>CNs are at the "thin end of the lollipop" to misapply Marylin Monroe. 
>
> Sure.
>
>>If they are to be taken seriously as a solution  to Internet access
>
> They're obviously not the solution everywhere.  But they're a solution in places where standard commercial ISPs are just not interested or likely to act.  Another important element, for our purposes, is that these are networks developed by the affected community, for their own purposes and to meet their own needs.  That's important because it's foundational for the Internet.
>
>>which I am not convinced they are - then some approach to co-existence 
>>with "commercial" ISPs
>
> Many of the projects we have supported are _working_ with commercial ISPs.  I don't think there's a conflict there.  There are definitely some CNs that are opposed to profit as such, but that's a feature of the community in question, not the style of networking.
>
>>The Web foundation has also made a point about extending Internet 
>>access. I don't know the current politics between ISOC and the WF but 
>>having very compatible ambitions would suggest deduplication and 
>>co-ordination might offer a multiplier effect?
>
> We're actually working with them on some efforts.
>
>>I am very unclear about how the funding is now working with the 
>>emergence of the ISOC Foundation. I didn't see a mention of the ISOC 
>>Foundation in the plan.
>
> The ISOC Foundation has its own plan for 2021.  https://www.isocfoundation.org/action-plan/action-plan-2021/  The general principle (this is not completely realized yet in practice, please note) is that direct funding to some other entity to pursue that entity's plan should really be provided by the Foundation according to the goals in the Foundation's plan, whereas funding to another entity in the furtherance of ISOC's own plans should come from ISOC.  So, for instance, the Foundation makes grants to other organizations that are aiming to undertake training or research or whatever themselves, whereas ISOC supports the training or research related to a community network in a target location aligned with the CN project's aims in the current fiscal period.
>
>>The plan does not make a split with the Foundation or explain how PIR 
>>revenues are now being allocated between PIR needs, ISOC and 
>>Foundation and where the funding for these programs fits with that 
>>flow. That might not be needed in an outward facing report. But for 
>>this community it might be very helpful in communicating to those who 
>>are being encouraged to participate within the tent.
>
> In order to lay that out in the way you're suggesting, I think I need to talk to PIR about what information we can and can't release in the current period.  I will have to get back to you about this topic.
>
>>I note that Chapters get 11 mentions I think, but I don't see any 
>>explicit  financial support mentioned in the plan so Chapters can 
>>prepare and develop the items mentioned. Is the community breakdown 
>>including for chapters SIGs etc going to be broken down?
>
> I don't think I really understand this question.  Chapters continue to be eligible for the administration funds as ever, according to the traditional formula.  The Beyond the Net grants remain a feature of the Foundation, and are included in their plan.
>
>>The biggest item in the financials are for staff/ operations at 
>>$29.36m leaving around $10m for activities by the community. It is not 
>>clear to me how much of the operations/ staff budget is directly being 
>>used for programs.
>
> Historically, that was pretty poorly tracked at ISOC.  This was the first year we've done a reasonable job with it, and the report on how we did is coming soon.  I agree that this has been a notable historic weakness in how we've reported things, and it's been one of my preoccupations (as many staff will tell you, I bet!) since 2018.  But please keep your eyes peeled for coming reporting on it.
>
> Thanks very much for the mail,
>
> A


-- 
Christian de Larrinaga 
https://firsthand.net