[Chapter-delegates] Responses to questions (was Re: Fwd: Proposed agenda for ISOC CEO and ISOC UK England Leadership Team meeting - 20 Feb 2024)
borka at e5.ijs.si
borka at e5.ijs.si
Wed Mar 6 22:19:05 PST 2024
Yes, Vint is saying the truth, as a first ISOC chair that was set up as
organization-society in 1992 during the annual Internet conference.
History facts should be respected.
Regards,
Borka, ISOC Slovenia
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, vinton cerf via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> Andrew, ISOC support for IETF and IAB was the reason for forming ISOC, not
> an accident! Long after ISOC was created, the IETF chose to create its own
> foundation.
> Vint
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024, 08:34 Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates
> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Please see attached the responses I sent to the UK England
> chapter leaders after our meeting in London.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet Society
> e:sullivan at isoc.org m:+1 416 731 1261
> Help protect the Internet for everyone:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan at isoc.org>
> To: "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
> Cc: ISOC England <contact at isoc-e.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:27:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for ISOC CEO and ISOC UK England
> Leadership Team meeting - 20 Feb 2024
> Hi,
>
> Thanks again for our meeting in London. I've tried to reply
> inline below. Assuming you have no additional follow up
> questions, I'd like to provide these answers to the
> chapter-delegates list as well (as requested).
>
> Apologies; I didn't have time to write a short email, so I wrote
> a long one instead.
>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:20:15PM +0100, Olivier MJ
> Crépin-Leblond wrote:
>
> >Topic 1: CEO renewal
>
> As discussed before, this topic appears really to be one best
> addressed by the board, so I'm setting it aside.
>
> >Topic 2: Internet Society Foundation
> >
> >ISOC's intentions on formation of the Foundation was to
> establish a
> >separate Board and governance for the Foundation. It was
> proposed that
> >the current arrangement of ISOC trustees also all being
> Foundation
> >Trustees as only viable as a stop gap. The evolution of the
> governance
> >of the Foundation appears to have stalled since the attempted
> sale of
> >PIR.
> >
> >Given that the current arrangement causes a serious conflict of
> >interest between the organisations:
>
> As I said before and emphasized in our meeting, I'm not in a
> position to discuss the governance of the Foundation. I can't
> even comment on the plans that were in place at the Foundation's
> start, since I didn't work for the Internet Society then and was
> not privy to the discussion.
>
> I tried to lay out the way in which it was not possible for the
> Foundation and the Internet Society to be in a real conflict,
> because the Foundation is a supporting organization of the
> Internet Society and therefore a kind of instrument that can be
> used to pursue the mission of the Internet Society itself.
>
> The Foundation includes the philanthropy staff, and they are
> professionals who are expert in grant-making and in designing
> and administering grant programs. This is all now done though
> our Fluxx platform, which gives a consistent interface for grant
> application and also provides the staff and board with long-term
> data that can be used as part of the evaluation and potential
> refinement of funding programs.
>
> The Foundation may not itself be the source of all money; who
> administers the grants is not necessarily who pays for them. In
> the case of chapters, in particular, there are some difficulties
> in having the Foundation send money because not every chapter
> can qualify as a 501(c)(3). The Foundation is only allowed to
> fund 501(c)(3) organizations (and their equivalents) under US
> tax law, because it is organized to support a charity (the
> Internet Society). The Internet Society uses mechanisms like
> this supporting organization approach in order to enable
> operational advantages under US nonprofit tax law.
>
> Some chapters have benefitted from the Beyond the Net grant
> program and developed stronger grant administration skills, and
> then become able to apply for other grant programs offered both
> by the Internet Society and Foundation, and by other funders. I
> didn't have this number when we met, but the unaudited value of
> all the grants and support sent to chapters in 2023 was nearly $
> 1.5 million.
>
> >Topic 3: ISOC's future
> >
> >It is notable that in relation to other Internet organisations
> >referred to as I* including IETF, ICANN, IAB, Regional Internet
> >Registries. ISOC alone today has no operational
> responsibilities for
> >Internet resources, networks, or governance communities. This
> has
> >frequently led to comments by operators in those communities to
> ask
> >"What is the point of ISOC"?
> >
> >3.1 What is the Point of ISOC today and into the next five
> years in
> >the CEO's view?
>
> Unlike every other so-called I* organization, the Internet
> Society has never had a direct role in operational
> responsbilities. It is true that for many years, the Internet
> Society formally had the responsibilities of the IETF and the
> IAB, but this was really just an accident of the organizational
> arrangements. With the creation of the IETF Administration LLC,
> the contractual arrangements are a little different (though it
> is worth noting that the IETF Administration LLC remains a part
> of the Internet Society, that the IAB remains an advisory
> committee to the Internet Society Board of Trustees, and that
> 1/3 of the board is still appointed by the IETF through the
> IAB).
>
> So, what is the point of the Internet Society? Well, look
> around at the world. When most of us first got access to the
> Internet, everyone who knew about it thought it was a good
> idea. Now there are a lot of people who doubt that. The
> Internet needs a voice, and the Internet Society strives to be
> it. Internet shutdowns have increased (hence our investment in
> tools like Pulse). Attacks on the Internet are rising (hence our
> work in 2024 on a framework for regulatory actions on
> intermediary liability as well as specific attention to the UN
> in the run-up to WSIS+20). We have created frameworks for
> thinking about this, which is why we created the Internet Impact
> Assessment toolkit, and why we keep investing in training and
> education for policy makers as well as the next generation of
> Internet leaders. If you look through our activities, at least
> half of them (and I'd argue all of them) are efforts to be
> advocates for the Internet and its way of connecting us all -- a
> way that has turned out to be cheaper, more resilient, and more
> flexible than other traditional network designs!
>
> One particular topic of discussion we had was around the direct
> discussion of "multi-stakeholder" and its cognates. Part of the
> reason you don't hear us beating that drum so much is because
> the term has become so elastic as to carry, in my opinion,
> little meaning. When authoritarian governments and the largest
> corporations in the history of corporations can both claim the
> mantle of "multi-stakeholderism," we have an abstraction that is
> no longer fit for purpose. We need to concentrate on what we
> want. What we want is an Internet that is for everyone, and not
> some set of special privileged interests. That is, all the
> time, our focus.
>
> >3.1.1 Is there a 5 year strategic plan in place?
>
> Yes. We're coming to the end of one, and starting a new one
> over the next 12 months; that new one is one that I know the
> board undertook extensive consultations with the community
> about. The staff are working now to put in place the necessary
> documents to share with the community about how we intend to
> implement the board's direction, and the new materials will be
> announced as soon as the board has accepted them and they're
> ready for posting.
>
> >
> >3.2 2024 Action Plan
> >https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-Action-Pla
> n-EN.pdf
> >
> >Focussing on two topics:
> >3.2.1 countering Internet threats
> >3.2.1.1 What kind of threats are in the cross-wires of this
> action
> >item? Threats from UN? Globally? Individual Governments (at
> national
> >level)? Regionally (for example European Commission)? Private
> Sector
> >(for example Network Neutrality or consolidation of Internet
> resources
> >and monopolies)? There number of threats to the Internet are
> numerous.
>
> Yes, all of these things. It's tough for such a small
> organization! This is why you see us trying to raise more
> funds, so that we're in a position to counter as much as
> possible. The people who don't like the Internet are nation
> states who can literally print money, and some of the
> best-capitalized and best-funded corporations and political
> organizations in the history of capital. Our army of staff and
> volunteers is mighty, for sure, but still too few and too small
> to win in this battle.
>
> >3.2.1.2 At what "layer" are these threats mostly going to be?
>
> I am extremely sceptical of the "layer" model. It is intuitive
> and simple, but it's wrong, since every layer can be
> encapsulated in any other layer. It was a tempting
> simplification and it was early on useful to engage
> policymakers. But I think we're living with a hangover from
> this idea, because the policymakers decided that there had to be
> a layer where they could insert themselves. There isn't. The
> threats happen at every layer, which is why we see everything
> from literal shutdowns (basically, the elimination of the
> physical layer), through interference with Transport Layer
> Security, all the way up to attacks on protocols in the
> application layer. All of these can endanger the ability of the
> Internet to be for everyone.
>
> >3.2.1.3 How are these threats going to be decided? Which threat
> is
> >"more important"? Which threat has priority?
>
> It's hard to answer this in the abstract. "The one that can do
> the most damage," is hardly a satisfying answer, but it is
> mostly the one I think is right. We usually have to take these
> things case by case. Part of our advantage is that the same bad
> ideas come up over and over again, so we are often able to
> re-use tactics that worked in one place and take them to
> another.
>
> >3.2.2 defending the Internet in the UN.
> >This outward facing element of ISOC's advocacy has been missing
> in the
> >past and it would be good to understand what this will
> comprise,
> >particularly w/r/t IG.
> >Could you please elaborate on what processes will be followed?
> IGF?
> >WSIS? UNGA (with the UN Digital Cooperation Forum)? ECOSOC?
> UNESCO?
>
> These are all places we've been engaged with for the entire time
> I've been CEO, but given the number of things going on at the UN
> these days we've tried to highlight it in the 2024 agenda. One
> thing that people don't always realize is that not everything
> the staff do is something we do in the wide open. There are
> plenty of cases where the best strategy is to advocate quietly
> behind the scenes, and not make a fuss. It feels good sometimes
> to be lobbing insults or worse from outside, but if one can be
> polite and get into the room sometimes one gets a better
> outcome. I do think staff don't get enough public credit for
> this part of their work, but there's effectively no way to make
> a public deal about this without disclosing the very thing we
> were successful in not disclosing before!
>
> >3.2.3 Is ISOC planning to reinvigorate the I* and working with
> the
> >Internet technical community as a whole to mitigate these
> challenges?
>
> As I said in our meeting, I don't understand the idea that we
> have some sort of problem there. We have very good, regular
> contact among our staff and the staff of all of these other
> organizations. What is true is that we have had way fewer "I*
> CEO" meetings. That's because there isn't some simple, clear,
> joint challenge that we are all facing at the moment that needs
> a CEO-level discussion. The last one of those was the IANA
> transition. Many of the challenges that we (the Internet
> Society) see for the Internet, for instance, may not have any
> implications for (say) an RIR or ICANN. Domain names and IP
> addresses are likely to be needed for a long time even if the
> Internet ends up fragmented in various policy-driven ways across
> geographies, or gets completely controlled by a tiny oligarchy
> of interests.
>
> >3.3 ISOC Financials
> >https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/organization-report
> s/#financial-reports
> >2022 Financial Statements show the Internet Society making a
> loss for
> >that year.
>
> Yes, due overwhelmingly to financial losses in the markets. Our
> (as yet unaudited) 2023 statements will show essentially all of
> it returning. You may recall that 2022 was devastating in most
> public markets.
>
> >3.3.1 Is there oversight and reporting that is specific to
> keeping
> >track of the proportion of .org revenues being spent on
> internal
> >administration and staff compared to funding community works?
> >The annual financial statements do not show this.
>
> [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the meeting]
>
> No, because .org revenues do not get sent only to the Internet
> Society. We do track over all revenue and "Internet Society
> generated" revenue in order to give a good picture of just how
> dominant one part of our income is. We are working hard to
> diversify our revenue streams.
>
> >3.3.2 With other I* organisations providing detailed
> information about
> >the management of their projects as well as per department
> >cross-referencing, is ISOC prepared to rise up to the levels of
> >transparency that are now expected in public benefit entities
> and to
> >produce an annual financial report that provides more
> information than
> >its minimal published financial statement?
>
> [we did not have time to discuss this matter in the meeting]
>
> It isn't clear to me exactly what is being requested here, but
> unless I'm very much mistaken I think you're asking for a board
> policy change about what is to be disclosed. Ultimately, such a
> policy change would have to be adopted by the board, so I
> suggest you need to take that question up with them.
>
> I will note that our reporting is getting better in part because
> we have more infrastructure to do it. I expect that will get
> still better over time. But we do still have some deficiencies
> in our reporting infrastructure. I would rather invest in
> making that infrastructure better than pay someone to produce
> such reports by hand, given our resource limitations.
>
> >3.3.3 Is ISOC ready to publish its financials on multi-year
> projects
> >including its forecasts going forward? Scrutiny of Form 990
> appears to
> >show random continuity year on year and there is no way to find
> out
> >what is happening?
>
> I think this is also a question that needs to be directed to the
> board (or maybe more exactly, the finance committee; but the
> board is the right place to start).
>
> >3.4 MANRS
> >ISOC made a total divestment of its MANRS project to a US
> >not-for-profit, The Global Cyber Alliance (GCA) which has
> foundational
> >links to the City Police in UK and other similar agencies.
>
> "Divestment" (and cognates in what follows) is an inaccurate
> description of what has happened. The Internet Society has not
> been (historically) terribly good at running long-term
> operations, but it is quite good at incubating efforts and
> making them successful. That's what we did in this case, and we
> are providing more than $5 million over 5 years to ensure that
> MANRS continues to be successful as it turns into a long-term
> operation.
>
> GCA did have the City Police participating in its founding, but
> the City Police are no longer involved.
>
> >3.4.1 Why was this divestiture effected given that this was a
> >successful project which comforted the ISOC brand as being
> pertinent?
>
> See above.
>
> >3.4.2 Was a risk assessment done prior to moving MANRS
> elsewhere to an
> >organisation so close to law enforcement as to ensuring that
> the
> >Internet Society goals and principles in this important area
> remain at
> >the top of the routing security agenda?
>
> We do not believe GCA is especially close to law enforcement.
>
> >3.4.3 By what criteria was the GCA chosen as an suitable
> organisation
> >to run the MANRS project? Were there conditions imposed on
> Goals?
> […]
> >3.4.4 Are there Performance Agreements (SLAs) in place for the
> ongoing
> >conditional funding of the GCA?
> […]
> >3.4.4.1 If yes, are there clauses to cancel the GCA Secretarial
> and
> >Operational duties, should it fail in its SLAs?
>
> It is a participant in this work, and it is designed to do the
> kind of long-term operational work that we are not able to do.
> Of course, our grant to GCA, just as any grant we make, contains
> performance and reporting requirements that mean the grant will
> be rescinded if the performance and reporting do not happen.
>
> >3.5 Concept of the Internet Society holding network related
> patents
> >
> >In a recent conversation on the Internet History Mailing List,
> Karl
> >Auerbach proposed that ISOC or the IETF established an arm that
> could
> >accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for
> >reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms). Vint Cerf
> replied
> >that he liked the idea and that the concept of ISOC being
> compensated
> >for doing so could ease its challenge demonstrating the level
> of
> >public support it has (the so-called IRS Public Support Test)
> that
> >requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income comes from
> a broad
> >range of public sources.
> >Would you consider this as a potential responsibility to evolve
> ISOC?
>
> This would present an enormous litigation risk to the Internet
> Society. Patent pools are a great lawsuit target for "patent
> trolls". (I didn't mention this in our meeting, but it also
> isn't clear to me how this would be compatible with our IRS
> charitable purpose, so we'd have to investigate that if it
> seemed at all a plausible way forward.)
>
> >Topic 4: Operational Issues
>
> [we were unable to get to most of this topic in person, so I'm
> going to respond to the best of my ability here.]
>
> >4.1 New Chapter Membership Administration System
> >
> >After more than one month in existence it is clear that the new
> >Chapter Membership Administration System is failing to achieve
> the
> >functions it was meant to achieve:
> >a. emailing members
> >b. hosting fora for community discussions like the Chapter
> Advisory
> >Council discussions and other fora
>
> There clearly have been some ways in which the system has not
> been ideal, but I think we have seen some responses on the
> chapter-delegates mailing list of how things can be working.
> Please do continue to open tickets in the dedicated
> implementation queue, "AMSHelp at isoc.org". Thanks.
>
> It is important, also, that chapters use the functionality that
> exists. Each chapter can appoint up to two communication
> officers who manage the one-way communication via email. This
> assignment isn't automated, so it's something you have to do.
>
> The fora you're thinking of have been converted into Chatter
> groups. You can post via email, and it is also possible to
> received each message as it is posted rather like a traditional
> email listserv. There are still some ways this functionality
> does not work quite the way people used to mailing lists expect,
> I will note. But we also have heard many complaints over time
> about our reliance on mailing lists: for lots of people, email
> is a legacy system they don't like to use.
>
> >To-date the failure of the emailing system is such that even
> ISOC
> >Staff have been unable to use it for any campaign whatsoever.
>
> I don't believe this is actually correct. The Internet Society
> staff have been communicating with the community since the
> launch in December through this platform.
>
> I understand that there may have been some deficiencies in how
> SPF or DKIM or both were configured.
>
> >The discussion fora are completely empty.
>
> I also don't believe this is correct, though it is possible that
> the ones you attend to are in fact empty. There is definitely a
> difference in the functionality of the Chatter groups and the
> old fora. We are attempting to refine that experience.
>
> > The porting of old
> >discussions has lost all formatting, attached documents etc.
>
> It is definitely the case that some old formatting was lost: the
> Connect platform allowed HTML-tagged formatting and the new one
> doesn't. In consultation with the chapters who participated in
> the focus groups around this transition, we decided to accept
> this limitation. Also, it was only the former Connect data that
> was migrated to the new system: anything that was outside that
> necessarily stayed out. I am unaware of any content that was
> lost, and this was one of the major focal points of
> post-migration testing, so if you can point to a specific case
> of data loss it would be very important to hear about it
> urgently, please.
>
> > Functions
> >like the emailing of the fora discussions are non existent.
>
> I think this is overstating the case, but there have been
> problems with the ways email interacts with all of this. One
> issue is that the default was to send batches rather than each
> message. We are diligently working to find new problematic
> cases.
>
> >The system appears to require lots of pre-established templates
> none
> >of which are available.
>
> You do need to template messages in advance. There are
> different templates, but it's wise for each chapter to maintain
> their control over the templates they use. If there is a gap
> that you need help with urgently, please open a ticket with
> AMSHelp at isoc.org. Thanks.
>
> >The list of problems is too long to list here but the result is
> a loss
> >of community history as well as a complete hindrance on
> membership
> >management at Chapter level. ISOC is without a communications
> tool - a
> >tool that should have been at the centre of its operations and
> that
> >has failed to deliver.
> >
> >4.1.1 What is ISOC planning to do to fix this serious problem?
>
> We are doing monthly releases to refine and improve the
> platform.
>
> >4.1.2 How long will it take to fix?
>
> This depends on what we mean by "fix". There are some issues
> that require more work than others, but I believe there are some
> fixes that have been publicly requested that are for things not
> actually broken in the system as designed, so it is hard for me
> to answer this fairly. In particular, there have been some
> calls to revert to a state of affairs in respect of data sharing
> that we simply cannot do under various privacy laws today.
> While I have sympathy with those frustrated by the loss of
> sometimes lower-friction ways of doing things, we cannot leave
> aside our obligtions to conform with privacy and anti-spam laws.
>
> There is a “Community Portal Updates” Chatter group. All
> interested chapter leaders are invited to join that group. This
> will help everyone understand what the monthly releases include.
>
> >4.1.3 If the system is "born dead" would ISOC consider finding
> an
> >alternative system and dropping the current system on the basis
> that
> >it is a failure and immediately proposing an alternative?
>
> The system is not "born dead", as the success of some users has
> shown. This system went through an exhaustive selection process
> involving, among others, chapter leaders who could comment on
> the functionality. This is a large change, however, which is
> always difficult.
>
> >4.2 Relationship between Chapters and HQ in matters of national
> importance
> >
> >4.2.1 Does ISOC have a rulebook regarding engagement relating
> to
> >Internet policy and advocacy in countries where there is a
> local
> >Chapter?
>
> We try always to engage in development of our positions in
> consultation with those locally on the ground in any country we
> attend to. That does not always mean direct engagement by the
> person who is visiting: it often means that people come
> well-briefed with the Internet Society position. Of course, it
> has happened on some occasions that the Internet Society and a
> chapter in a country do not agree about something, though it is
> pretty rare.
>
> >4.2.2 How does ISOC align itself with the positions taken by a
> local
> >chapter in a specific territory when ISOC in intervening
> directly in
> >that territory? For example, your visit in the UK is triggered
> by your
> >participation at a conference. How will you align your
> narrative with
> >the Chapter's narrative?
>
> First, there is no actual requirement that a chapter must agree
> with the wider Internet Society (it has happened, as noted
> above). But in general we try always to make sure we are well
> aligned. I came to the UK, for instance, well-briefed ahout the
> topics I was likely to interact with people about. It is not,
> of course, possible for any one person to meet with everyone in
> every chapter. But in general we try to ensure the whole
> Internet Society, including the chapters, are largely aligned on
> these matters. That might mean that there are tiny differences
> in the ways we talk about certain things, of course. But the
> richness of a choir comes from the many voices coming together
> to sing the same musical piece.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet Society
> e:sullivan at isoc.org m:+1 416 731 1261
> Help protect the Internet for everyone:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list