[Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing

[Mike Godwin]

My personal view, which does not reflect any institutional affiliation I
may have, is that the ITU will never be an adequate venue for
multistakeholderism that adequately includes non-governmental stakeholders
(such as NGOs). Consider just this one factor, for example: many of the
people whose interests will be directly affected by things the ITU cannot
afford to take off two or three weeks every four years to hang out in a
plenipotentiary meeting in Dubai and Romania. ITU by its very nature will
always favor multilateralism over multistakeholderism. I can't speak for
the Trump Administration's handling of its relationship with the ITU, but
the USG has not been the primary motivating impulse behind multilateralism
and privileging the ITU as somehow having innate power and authority over
the internet despite having originated in the era of the telegraph and
partaking of a century and a half of monopoly wireline traditions before
belatedly realizing that the internet was turning into something important.
It's the non-free nations (as defined by, e.g., Freedom House) that prefer
multilateralism, and they make up a majority of members of the ITU.

Let's not nurse fantasies of the wonderfulness of the ITU as an arbiter of
tomorrow's internet.

Mike



On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:26 PM Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:10:21AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote:
> >
> >It would be good to know: a) what ISOC is doing with regards to this
> >issue
>
> I think there is little doubt that the Internet model is under some
> threat.  In addition, in my view merely talking about some of the
> traditional nation-state threats misses the other threats.  As a practical
> matter, any attempt to erode the Internet way of networking is a problem –
> whether that comes from a nation-state that has never embraced the Internet
> way (such as those with "great firewalls"); a nation-state that
> traditionally _did_ embrace the Internet way (such as countries that have
> tried to specify "clean networks" by issuing orders that specify which
> other networks may not be connected to directly); or a corporation that,
> whether through sheer commercial inertia or through competitive strategy,
> ends up controlling and closing off too much of the network infrastructure.
>
> That's why we adopted the strategic objectives to build the Internet
> ("Extend the Internet to communities that do not have it and need it
> most"), promote the Internet ("Promote the Internet model of networking as
> the preferred model"), and defend the Internet ("Shape the policies of
> leading governments in favor of the growth of independent networks, which
> are free to interconnect", "Counter attempts by leading governments to
> undermine encryption", and "Defend against shutdowns by increasing
> cross-border connectivity and resiliency").
>
> Here are some of the ways we've been doing that:
>
>      • The Internet Society staff monitor and participate, when possible,
> in UN discussions that may impact the multistakeholder model of the
> Internet (e.g. CSTD, HLPDC, OEWG).  We will not, however, get involved in
> politics around the election of the next ITU Sec Gen.
>         • We maintain our position on the future of the IGF, our support
> for the general multistakeholder approach for Internet governance, and are
> attending to discussions of WSIS Renewal leading up to 2025.
>      • We advocate for the Internet Way of Networking principles, which
> are a response to top-down multilateral attempts to take over the
> governance of the Internet.
>      • We coordinate informally with colleagues from the technical
> community, who are also engaged in these
>         • We have been active in the work of the Christchurch Call, as a
> way of illustrating that multistakeholder efforts that affect the Internet
> can respond to government-originating issues and concerns.
>         • We are monitoring and analyzing proposed cybercrime treaties.
>         • We have developed targeted messages, consistent with limitations
> on our lobbying capacity, to meet legislative proposals that are attempts
> to control the Internet in political jurisdictions where we believe we can
> be effective. We sometimes collaborate with other organizations in an
> effort to make our voice stronger.
>
> There is current work on a plan to engage chapters interested in these
> topics. (Elizabeth Oluoch and Christine Saegesser are leading that
> activity.)  So, we are keen to hear what chapters have to say about issues
> of importance to them.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210706/19774299/attachment.htm>