[Chapter-delegates] ISOC 2022 Action Plan

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi Veni!

Sorry to read that the 2022 Action Plan appears not to be to your liking.  Some specifics below.  (Note that I don't think I'm subscribed to the European chapter list, so I expect this will end up in moderation for some time on that list.)

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 07:21:38AM -0500, Veni Markovski via Chapter-delegates wrote:

>I am not sure what ISOC means by the assumption that we are "building 
>local communities"

I am a little puzzled as to why you call that an "assumption" rather than a statement of what chapters do.  It's one of the four things listed under "chapter activities" on https://www.internetsociety.org/chapters/.  Do you think that page is inaccurate?

>, but it's a good thing that ISOC plans to train our 
>members, though 500 is not that much (ISOC Bulgaria alone has 121 
>members), so I hope the training will reach many more chapter members!

Our overall training efforts, into which we've put a lot of work over the last couple years, have so far been received quite positively and have generally exceeded enrollment targets.  But of course, we cannot train everyone in the world alone, and we are hopeful that chapter members who take training we offer then carry what they learn back to their colleague members in their respective chapters and share the knowledge.

>One would expect to see some ISOC concrete plans in the section about 
>Strengthening the Internet (page 7), but there's nothing about the 
>possibilities for ISOC to engage either directly with the United 
>Nations, the ITU and other UN agencies, where member states are 
>discussing different ways of changing the multistakeholder model of 
>Internet governance (MSM) to a multilateral one, or indirectly - with 
>the help of the chapters through the governmental delegations to these 
>intergovernmental organizations.

We engage with those bodies regularly and remain active in them, but there are some limitations (particularly in respect of the UN).  In particular, I guess I needn't tell you given your day job, the UN is an intergovernmental institution; and so we can act at best in an advisory capacity there.  Even though, for instance, we participate in the ITU as sector members, we don't have a vote and cannot directly affect the outcome of actvities there.  This does not lessen our commitment to continued engagement, but it also limits what we might call "action" in such environments.

>However, there is a section called "Shaping Legal Precedent in 
>Alignment with Our Mission", where ISOC states that "As an expert 
>voice for a bigger, stronger Internet, the Internet Society is 
>positioned to offer subject-matter and technical expertise to courts." 

Yes, just as we offer such expertise in the other fora you mention.  What is different about the amicus program is that it is new for 2022, unlike the other activities.  More on this below.

>It is not a surprise that ISOC, which is based in the US, would engage 
>in such actions, but there's not a word about engaging with issues, 
>relating to actions (including court cases) at the European Union 
>level. As we all know from the GDPR experience, some of the decisions, 
>taken at the EU level have the potential to touch upon the Internet 
>around the world.

There is no question that decisions in the European Union affect the Internet, but I don't really understand what that has to do with a totally new program that is attempting to engage with US courts, which (owing to the nature of the US political system) make a _very large_ number of decisions about how regulations will work in the US.  The US is, last I checked, still pretty influential in the way the Internet develops, and so decisions by US courts have consequences for the Internet everywhere.

Moreover, it is important to recognize that the US legal system has some unusual features, and one of them is the ability of parties who are not actually part of a legal proceeding to file "friend of the court" (or _amicus curiae_, which is why these get called "amicus briefs") briefs.  Many legal systems allow the court to reach out to experts to get expert advice (which they do more or less often in different places); but the US system in effect allows experts to offer their advice unsolicited.  We believe that this represents another forum where the Internet Society can help shape social policies respecting the Internet, so we have initiated this for 2022 in a modest way.  Hence the restriction to no more than 6.

In the event this effort is successful, we will likely have to evaluate ways we could undertake similar efforts in other jurisdictions.  But such efforts would almost certainly have to be designed differently, because most legal systems simply don't work the way the US one does, and much rule-making in other places do not depend on the courts quite so heavily either.

>ISOC has changed the level of engagement with the EU 
>in the last year*, and the lack of any mentioning of the EU in such an 
>important document says a lot.

If by "changed the level of engagement with the EU" you mean "improved the engagement", then I agree with the first part of your assertion.  Your footnote seems to suggest you think there is some kind of argument to be made on the basis of comparing the titles of certain staff, but I'm not sure what you are implying; so I hesitate to say more.  In any case, the lack of mention of a specific new engagement with the EU does not say anything more than that we will continue our engagements there as we have done.  We still have three office locations and plenty of staff in Europe, and contemplate no change to that.  (If the Internet Society listed everything that we would continue to do each year in the annual action plan, the plan would be very long and probably not so engaging.  For instance, we will continue offering the chapter admin fund, and we will continue to pay our rent and bills on time, but I don't imagine you think those are elements that ought to be in the 2022 Action Plan.)

>In 2022 there will be a number of major intergovernmental conferences, 

I think your verb tense there offers rather more certainty than the global health news gives me.  We know that these conferences are scheduled.  We certainly maintain our good relationships with governments and intergovernmental organizations, and where we can be useful at such conferences we will as ever strive to be useful.  But it isn't even clear that all of these conferences will be held, nor what will be on the agendas of them, so it is hard for us to say with much certainty what our actions will be in respect of them.  In any case, I do not believe that an action plan is a good place to list all of the meetings that some staff will go to during the year: I don't really think of that as "action" as such.

>the mainstream media** about the potential threat to the MSM, and 
>given what is coming in 2022, it's strange that the Action Plan 
>doesn't mention any planned actions by ISOC with regards to this.

The entire plan is about acting to build, promote, and defend the Internet, which is _inherently_ a multistakeholder system, so I disagree with your claim.  "The MSM" is not some holy good that needs to be defended for its own sake.  It is a model that is appropriate to the Internet because of the kind of thing the Internet is, and it is therefore something we continue to work defending for that very reason.  We are, after all, the Internet Society, not the Multistakeholder Society; so our emphasis is on the Internet.

>Strengthening the Internet does not happen only in the US court rooms, 
>but weakening it might happen at many intergovernmental organizations 
>and EU courts, and would have been good to see that ISOC Action Plan 
>recognizes that.

I believe this action plan does indeed recognize that and attempts to lay out what we intend to do to build, promote, and defend the real Internet.  I hope you will look at it again in that light and see how it tells that story.

Best regards,

A

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