[Chapter-delegates] Message from Internet Society Audit Committee Chair

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates writes:


Dealing with COI ISOC and chapters

> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 01:34:54PM +0000, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>>

>
>>Incidentally Conflicts of Interest can also occur if ISOC determines how
>>a Chapter represents itself - given the constituency role a chapter has
>>in ISOC.
>
> I don't understand what the conflict is there; could you say more?  
>

Well I don't want to over egg this by letting people think this is an
actual problem today in practice. Because it is not as far as I know.

But if you look at the structure of how things have developed there is some potential for self referential conflicts.

For instance Chapters elect ISOC Trustees.

The logic of the governance relationship of ISOC is from local Internet
communities gathering as chapters to elect ISOC trustees. (Leaving aside
the way org and IETF interact with ISOC trustees).So what are the
potential for conflicts from these relationship dynamics?

Firstly if  ISOC determines how a chapter is governed then that potentially can
influence how ISOC is governed via influencing (corruptly) the chapter electoral role.

Secondly ISOC pays money to Chapters. A perceived conflict could occur if
it could be  inferred ISOC or some part in ISOC was using that to
influence Chapter candidate selection / voting for the board. (for example)

There are other potential things to look out for. For instance if an
ISOC staff member or board member or contractor or other benefactor
takes on a senior chapter roll and uses the chapter processes to
influence ISOC in a way that falls outside community consensus. 

Not so difficult to deal with these sort of issues. But architecturally
designing how the bits of our community fit together is the simplest I
think. One reason why it is helpful for the arrow of governance to be
clearly bottom up from chapters as self governing independent bodies and
for the community to adopt standards of behaviour that use independent
professional norms if not via our own community consensus process. 


>>I don't see ISOC telling its organisational members to do x y or z at a
>>governance level. (as distinct from contractual)
>
> Organizational Members are not Chapters, though.  Chapters are
> independent organizations that have a direct affiliation with the
> Internet Society, which is why Chapters are eligible for financial
> support and certain programs, can use a derivative logo, and so on.

Mostly grants to chapters are for services to the community.

ISOC's PIR funding stream has been a blessing but it was achieved in part because
technical partners where  chosen who do a good job, but  also by playing
to the strengths of ISOC's chapter global network and the importance
of our responsibilities with IETF for Internet standards work etc. 

It is notable that ISOC trustees took upon themselves the ownership, governance and
responsibilities for managing these funds and have never reached out to
the community as far as I know for active involvement.

The reason why Chapters go to ISOC for funding now is because PIR was setup
this way without the ISOC community and does not allocate a proportion
of its surpluses across the community sphere.

It is all taken up by ISOC and ISOC chooses. Or now its Foundation does
partly which for all intents and purposes is ISOC but further removed
from both chapters, IETF, and Org members. In other words the Foundation
feels as if it is taking the .org surpluses further from the engagement
of the communities it was delegated to assist. 

So if you have a potential concerns that the ISOC board can't be as
transparent and unified on issues around PIR as you would benefit from
as the current CEO. This may well be why. It was all subsumed that way
deliberately and you are having to manage the situation within the resultant hall of mirrors.

I am not in anyway implying unethical behaviour. Just that maybe it
wasn't setup as anticipated when .org was allocated to us or as
efficiently as it could have been since.

> Organizational Members can't do any of that.  If an organization that
> is a Chapter wished instead not to have to conform to the terms of a
> Chapter Engagement Letter but still wanted an organizational
> affiliation with the Internet Society, it would certainly be open to
> that Chapter to stop being a Chapter and to join as an Organizational
> Member.
>

This is too much red tape for me and my throbbing ear infection! 

What I would say is the Internet communities around the world that need and
support the open, innovative basis to build and connect networks and
tools that the Internet model offers remain very much in need of a basic
infrastructure to empower communities to exist and be counted.

Chapters can be part of that effort.

So much policy talk is focused on fragmentation of surveillance regions,
on treating cloud platforms as "the Internet" and building policy for
cellular networks that break end to end connectivity and so on without
thinking through the consequences for application spaces, user status,
user market dynamics and keeping space for future technologies. 

Organizational members in my experience depend on an inside ISOC
champion but ISOC has never managed to extend that support in those
organizations to include their brand values with ISOC's core values nor
encourage direct engagement by them directly with chapters around the world in
areas they are  doing  business or charitable activities. Some very
simple things could be  done to join these dots and turn every $1 into
$10. 

I've introduced several orgs to ISOC and some have joined and
subsequently left because they "don't see the point". i.e, the "benefit".  

It has too often been a case of "us" and "them" when it comes to ISOC
and its chapters and organisational communities. I am not saying this is
down to you or the current leadership incidentally. So take this
personally if it echoes with you but not negatively but just as something for
us to do better with what we have.

Who knows maybe via few strategically placed adjustments some of the
problems you mentioned might be fixed avoiding tons of tortuous rules.  

Incidentally we've  had a very tough year. Let's be kind in realisation
people here are here to further the open Internet. It's pretty amazing
really. Despite everything being thrown at it the Internet can still be for Everyone.  

> Best regards,
>
> A

best to you too 

C
-- 
Christian de Larrinaga