[Chapter-delegates] Common sense about conflicts, bias, and chapters

[sivasubramanian muthusamy]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:16 PM Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> All
>
> (Side note. I've confirmed that there is enough spare capacity on wireless
> networks to reach 80%+ of
> schoolkids currently without a connection in 2-3 months in the US and most
> of Europe. Making things like that happen is what ISOC should be for.)
>
> There are now 60 often contentious posts about conflict of interest, many
> focused on a rule that some chapter officers can't be on the board.
>
> In New York, it would be no big deal if a chapter officer had to step down
> if elected to the board of trustees. Active membership in most ISOC
> chapters is so small that even non-officers will get a full say. I'm sure
> that's true in most other chapters. *So let's not belabor this
> particular.*
>
> Board members and staff should understand the strength of the comments as
> a sign the members and chapters want important, inclusive, multistakeholder
> change. Our membership and their involvement are stagnant, despite our
> spending over $million  on staff to support growth. Why we are failing is
> important for all of us, the board in particular, to understand.
> -----------------------------
>
> But ISOC clearly does have important conflicts we need to be aware of.
>
> Most of us believe the Internet is for everyone. Empirically, the most
> effective way to connect more people is to bring the cost down. 400 million
> Indians now have 4G connections because Jio has driven down the price to
> US$3-10. Comcast's $10 for poor families with kids has been the
> most effective program to connect people.
>
> Almost all large telcos do not offer or seek to limit requirements to
> offer inexpensive service to those who can't afford it. See the AT&T and
> Verizon opposition to a robust Lifeline program.
>
> No effort other than bringing down prices has been proven to get many more
> people connected.  (I can back that up with data.) We need to do more. I
> volunteer for community networks but recognize they will be 1-2% at best
> for the foreseeable future. What are we doing for the other 97%?
>
> In addition, we all realize that ~5 giant companies dominate the Internet
> and that's a problem. We will never get the world to trust the Internet if
> US companies have so much power.
>

Dave,  this concentration of tech power and the combined size of these so
called "giants" presents an extra-ordinary possibility of an unprecedented
ability to solve global problems in various spheres that historically
remain unresolved. Is there a way to cause some form of coordination to
channelize their strengths without drastically disrupting their freedom as
business enterprises?  Somehow I find it difficult to believe that all
their growth is driven by "greed" for power or wealth. And, not 5, there
are a few more, if you keep your definition of "tech" companies flexibile.


>
> Several of the board and the PIR board work for the giants or their
> suppliers. More when I'm not on deadline.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --
> Editor, AnalysisBranch.com, Wirelessone.news, fastnet.news
> @analysisbranch telecom news worth a tweet
> Available for consulting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20201109/690fb9f4/attachment.htm>