[Chapter-delegates] Responses to questions (was Re: Fwd: Proposed agenda for ISOC CEO and ISOC UK England Leadership Team meeting - 20 Feb 2024)
Joly MacFie
joly at punkcast.com
Thu Mar 7 01:44:33 PST 2024
On the occasion of ISOC's 20th anniversary in 2012, Vint, Bob Kahn and Lynn
St Amour made a short video that talked about its origins
https://youtu.be/-BPiusFlrgc
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:20 AM 32888 via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 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/
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/
>
--
--------------------------------------
Joly MacFie +12185659365
--------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20240307/f7d28bf6/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list