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

[Richard Hill]

Thank you for this. Please see embedded comments below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-
> delegates
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 19:22
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Bank Accounts was - deadline for admin
> funding
> 
> 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.

Actions speak louder than words. As you know, I was disappointed by the
Board's reactions to the advice from the Chapters Advisory Council
regarding the proposed sale of PRI/.ORG.

> 
> 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.  

Or ISOC could be a membership organization, where the members have the
final say, through an annual general assembly or whatever. "Members" could
be individuals, or they could be chapters. Hopefully the group that will
(is?) considering changes to the Bylaws might consider such possibilities.

By the way, what is the status of that group and the timeline for
discussions?

>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. 

It appears to me that the private sector has been quite efficient at
making that happen. And I'm not the only one who thinks that, take a look
at:

 
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/01/1004725/redesign-internet-apps
-no-one-controls-data-privacy-innovation-cloud/ 

Here are some quotations from that article:

"Governments may have struggled to regulate the internet, but new
sovereigns have taken over instead. Barlow's "home of Mind" is ruled today
by the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu-a
small handful of the biggest companies on earth."

"The dominance of a few companies, and the ad-tech industry that supports
them, has distorted the way we communicate-pulling public discourse into a
gravity well of hate speech and misinformation-and upended basic norms of
privacy. There are few places online beyond the reach of these tech
giants, and few apps or services that thrive outside of their ecosystems."

"There is an economic problem too. The effective monopoly of these firms
stifles the kind of innovation that spawned them in the first place. It is
no coincidence that Google, Facebook, and Amazon were founded back when
Barlow's cyberspace was still a thing."

>I think we are all
> opposed to that, and I think we need to be strong in the face of such a
> challenge.  

Agreed. So, once again, I invite ISOC to join the coalition of those who
oppose using free trade agreements, which are negotiated in secret by
governments, to make binding international rules that will enshrine
exactly what we don't want: the continuing drift to the "pretendernet",
that is towards the simulacrum of the Internet we actually want.

>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. 

Agreed. And this underscores the need for broad consultation within ISOC
whenever important decisions are going to be made.

>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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.