[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: [Internet Policy] What ISOC is doing

Veni Markovski veni at veni.com
Sun Jul 11 02:43:15 PDT 2021 

Copying the chapter-delegates list, as I didn't see Alejandro's message
there (he may not be among the subscribers?). If it has actually made
it, please, email me (off-list), so that I'd know the issue may be in my
mail list settings.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing
Date: 	Sat, 10 Jul 2021 22:37:52 -0500
From: 	Alejandro Pisanty via InternetPolicy
<internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
Reply-To: 	Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
To: 	Andrew Sullivan <sullivan at isoc.org>, Christian de Larrinaga via
InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>



Andrew, 

bringing together several threads:

1. The Internet Way of Networking and the Internet Impact Assessment
Toolkit are very useful tools. We have worked with them in discussions
with legislators, regulators, and people from trade associations in
helpful ways. As you have correctly stated, much of this work goes
unnoticed because it is deliberately discreet; because it is contained
in meetings and teaching which at the time don't seem momentous enough
to report (and sometimes frustrating, because staff churn in
legislatures means you have to start again with the next litter), or
because it takes place outside ISOC's radar. In some countries, Chapters
have become dysfunctional or in dereliction of duty but ISOC members
continue to do this work none the less.

2. I add to the mix a tool of my own, the 6F Framework, in which we ask
people to analyze how their initiatives (legislation, business,
whatever) respond to six factors, viz. mass scaling (with network
effects), identity management, transjurisdictional effects, barrier
lowering, friction reduction, and memory. It all adds to a better
assessment, the avoidance of some disasters, and improving or abandoning
bad ideas. It would be useful to start building a library of cases in
which interventions like this have worked (or failed, too, for lessons
learned.) 

3. Sometimes ISOC staff or ISOC as an organization may be less than
happy about one or another of the Internet-native organizations, and
each of these may be unhappy about others among themselves (or at least
dislike the attitudes.) More esprit de corps among the I* will never be
damaging for the Internet; and it does not preclude honest criticism and
constructive contributions to collective improvement. ISOC is the one
with the highest mandate to do what the other organizations cannot, for
reasons like not getting entangled in politics, avoiding mission creep,
etc. In very concrete terms the least ISOC can do is surprise avoidance
and environmental awareness for the whole ecosystem. Chapters and
members globally are a great asset for this purpose if ISOC chooses to
accept and even foster their/our contributions. 

4. I think ISOC does well in not jumping into all bandwagons. We may see
massive support for some initiatives, and see them favorably as an
organization, but it is still wise to let each party do the job they are
best fit and designed for. While ISOC does excellent work that not only
respects but actually promotes the improvement on many rights, for
example, it is not centrally built as a human-rights advocacy
organization. Staying within the mission defined by its role as
interface to the technical organizations is prudent. As you correctly
say, even defining what is "a good environment" is not totally agreed
upon; on other issues differences within the Society will be even more
stark. We can still agree on the kind of Internet we want in which to
process all other differences. 

5. On multistakeholder governance. We should differentiate among
different criticisms of it. Some originate in pure lack of
understanding. Others, in the firm belief that only the multilateral
scheme is not only legitimate but valid and democratic. Others, from not
accepting any variation from top-down authority - and in many cases,
authoritarian rule inside their countries, so total opposition to
multistakeholder regimes elsewhere as well. A very good study was
published recently, "Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy - A
Global Challenge", by Harris Gleckman. It is steeped in classic
multilateralism but openly admits its failures giving rise to
multistakeholder approaches. Despite the severe criticism the
third-before-last paragraph includes the statement
"[multistakeholderism] does not have the capacity to be that new global
governance system. What it does do is to posit that there will be a
successor to multilateralism, and in so doing it opens the door for the
consideration of a system that places public participation and democracy
on the same level - if not above - effectiveness and efficiency as
essential elements of a ost-nation-state-based governance system." The
Internet is the prime testing ground here, because of its very nature as
you have explained. 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 9:45 PM Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy
<internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>>
wrote:

    Hi,

    I note that some others have answered your questions, and AFAICT I
    agree with them.  A couple more remarks below.

    On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 07:51:04PM +0530, parminder via
    InternetPolicy wrote:

    >That is an interesting concept... Will like to know what 'Internet' or
    >'good Internet' is for you/ ISOC, against which alone any impact
    >assessment can be marked.

    Have you looked at the toolkit and the Internet Way of Networking
    materials?  It is intended that these sorts of questions (and the
    others that you asked later in your mail, which I have elided from
    this) are answered by those materials. I would do an injustice if I
    tried to summarize here.  But, if there is something that isn't
    answered for you in the materials, it would be important to know
    that, since additional work is happening right now.

    Note that this is about _the Internet_, and not about everything
    vaguely related to the Internet.  So, for instance, one might think
    that concentration of ownership is bad for society and so on, and
    maybe also bad for the Internet.  The toolkit is intended to be
    useful in analyzing the extent to which such a state of affairs, or
    any regulatory action intended to address it, affects the Internet
    itself, and not all the social implications that come from that. 
    Similarly, if there is an application (call it "Blither") where
    people can post their thoughts, and a particular national government
    has a lot of negative things to say about postings on Blither, that
    would _not_ be in scope for the Internet Way of Networking project,
    because it is but one application that happens to use the Internet. 
    That is true even if that particular application is a very
    significant portion of the global Internet traffic.  There _might_
    be erosion of the critical properties due to the concentration of traf
     fic in a particular application, but that is a separate question.

    > (We all know what good environment is.)

    Really?  My impression is that such a definition is far from
    universally agreed upon. 

    Best regards,

    A

    -- 
    Andrew Sullivan
    President & CEO, Internet Society
    sullivan at isoc.org <mailto:sullivan at isoc.org>
    +1 416 731 1261
    _______________________________________________
    To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
    or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
    https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
    <https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login>
    and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
    -
    View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
    https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
    <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/>



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
<http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty>
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org>
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

-- 

Best regards, 
Veni
https://www.veni.com
pgp:5BA1366E veni at veni.com

The opinions expressed above are those of the 
author, not of any organizations, associated 
with or related to him in any given way. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210711/6edbf92a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list