[Chapter-delegates] Bank Accounts was - deadline for admin funding

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:22:26PM +0530, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote:

>The problems relate to ISOC seeing two "sides", and the notion of
>separation as reflected in "each other party".  Chapters are a part of the
>Internet Society, not a different 'side' or another 'party'.  We are the
>Internet Society.  At times it felt more like Chapters are a little
>disconnected.

Ah, I see what you mean.  Let me respond to that a little, then.

One of the first points I made as strongly as I could to the whole staff -- there was an all staff meeting organized for a month after I took this job -- was that our nature is in our name.  We are not the Internet Bossypants or the Internet People In Charge.  We are the Internet Society, and in a society, different people have different roles.  The role for the staff organization is to help this Society succeed in its goals, which are expressed right there in our Mission.  Many of you have heard me repeat this on other occasions, and I believe it is absolutely the case.  I totally agree with you that Chapters are an important constituent part (not all of, but critical part of) the Internet Society.

The Internet is a network of networks, with each part being legally and organizationally distinct and yet somehow interdependent in a way that depends on rules (protocols) and common interest; it is not strange to make those distinctions while simultaneously recognizing the relationship. In a similar way, Chapters are a critical part of the Internet Society and yet each is distinct from it.  And this is in part a legal fact: in order for there to be chapters, and for them to be in many different countries with different legal regimes, they need to be independent entities. Moreover, it is desirable to the chapters as near as I can tell: the chapters want to be independent parts of the Internet Society and not subject to central discipline except on matters where we all have come to agreement.  (The "where we have come to agreement" is what the PDP is for, I note, and is why PDP-handled positions are adopted ultimately by the Board of Trustees.)

We could be organized differently.  For instance, we could have an organization that formally subsumes the chapters as elements of the Internet Society as legally constituted (often called in English "branches"), which would have the advantage of not needing formal agreements but a pretty considerable disadvantage in terms of diversity of views.  We could have a completely centrally-directed system without the scope for debate and disagreement we have.  We could have a totally professionalized Internet Society and simply form alliances and partnerships with other organizations that resemble the current Chapters, the way we sometimes do with other Internet-focussed organizations.  But I think the model we have is the best one because it allows us to coalesce around our common Mission and yet express a great diversity of local needs and interests as related to that Mission.

But it seems to me that to do that, we have to be quite explicit about the formal independence of each part of the overall organization and what the relationships are.  So, as John More says elsewhere in this thread, to me the clarity on these matters is a feature.  It is true that the formality feels less "familial" than perhaps a another arrangement would feel.  But we are facing big challenges to the Internet.  There are lots of forces -- including national governments, international treaty organizations, and large multinational companies -- that want to take away the Internet and replace it with a pale simulacrum.  That simulacrum-Internet (what I've started calling pretendernet) removes the initiative and control from the end points and puts it in the hands of centralizers who want to treat all the users of the network as hapless sheep-consumers. I think we are all opposed to that, and I think we need to be strong in the face of such a challenge.  Clear and empowering agreements among ourselves is one such form of strength, as long as we recognize that that is why we are entering into agreement in the first place. Nothing is so bad for fighting a common enemy as dissention in one's own forces. I want to make sure the chapter charters are the means of expressing our common bonds so that we can face in unity those who want to ruin the Internet for everyone.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
sullivan at isoc.org
+1 416 731 1261