I missed this email a few days ago … Very short answer:
Agree that ISOC should not take political sides: That’s what they did here, unfortunately.
What ISOC is missing here, in my opinion, is a very clear apologize for the first post. I will love the ISOC board to take a position here to mandate that apologize. 45 million citizens have been insulted by ISOC staff by publishing false accusations, instead of having waited to read the court order and consulted the rest of the Spanish chapters BEFORE the post.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: viernes, 27 de octubre de 2017, 9:34
Para: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
Hi Jordi,
thanks for all the input!
With respect to ISOC commenting on political issues, Frederic's
clarifying statement (which was issued after the first one) said:
> There are many other stakeholders who are much better positioned
> than the Internet Society to deal with and comment on these
> political aspects.
So, yes, ISOC's role in those cases is not to take political sides but
to comment on technical issues.
With respect to your other comments, as you point out they are more
about concrete activities than mission-level comments. I will relay
them to those in ISOC dealing with those areas. In any case, you can
find my brief initial comments below:
1) ISOC has programs that bring "technical" and "policy" people to the
IETF. In addition, we have received requests from the chapters
community to have ISOC provide grants to support more-experienced IETF
participants. One example given was, indeed, to have ISOC cover the
registration fee for a few participants who meet some given criteria.
As I mentioned in a previous email, we are going to also
get the opinion of the IETF leadership about what is the best way to
help the IETF in that area. So, in short, we are currently looking
into this.
2) How to have IoT deployments with better security and resilience
was discussed in a plenary a few IETF meetings ago, IIRC. In addition
to having governments regulate such deployments, self-regulation by
the industry is another alternative that is often discussed. ISOC's
policy people are looking into that as well.
Again, thanks for the comments, Jordi!
Cheers,
Gonzalo
On 26/10/2017 4:30 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo,
>
> I will suggest that we have a clear text (may be in the mission statement) that avoids ISOC (and staff) to get involved into courts decisions in democratic countries and even comment them unless they have documents that demonstrate what they are saying. The recent happenings in Catalonia and the lies that ISOC staff has communicated, are not only illegal but also lies, and can bring legal consequences to ISOC & staff as a Spanish prosecutor is already looking into that. I’m not going to repeat myself on this, this is explained at:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170926_catalonian_matter_law_order_democracy_freedom_of_speech_censorship/
> and the continuation at:
> https://jordipalet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/isoc-against-its-own-principles-acting.html
>
> Also, after reading your email, and according to the highlighted activities I will like to bring a couple of possible more concrete actions.
>
> 1) As one of the proposed activities is “Facilitates open development of standards, protocols, administration, and the technical infrastructure of the Internet”, and this is clearly referring, at least in part, to IETF, considering increase in the revenue that you mention, I think it will be very relevant to understand that many frequent and active participants are contributing from their own pockets, which our own personal time. So, I think we should consider that those not backed by big companies, could get some funding at least to cover their registration fee. I’m not sure if also traveling expenses, but I guess increasing the ISOC contribution to IETF, to make the registration fee free for those that need that support, will not mean a very high cost for ISOC and for many of us it is over 2.000 USD per year.
> 2) I’m missing highlighting very concrete activities regarding “globally-connected, and secure”. Let me explain what I think are relevant actions that can be taken here in the next paragraphs.
>
> I’ve been tracking personally the problem of spam for several years, and precisely we had a discussion with some folks on this yesterday night. I’m clear that it requires some investigators, and I’m not talking only about “network” research, but also lawyers. I’m convinced that whois privacy is a big problem, as it hides criminals, and we should get involved in making sure that ICANN understands it.
>
> My few resources to investigate this, brought me to the conviction (I’m not saying that it was not clear for me before, but now I’ve evidences) that there are some criminal organizations using spam for many other criminal actions. They create user databases (at least with emails, but possibly other personal data), and they are at the minimum, selling or hiring those databases to another kind of “legal” but in my personal view, also criminal organizations which call themselves “email marketing companies”. Nobody, in general provides his/her email for receiving spam, and in many countries, this is forbidden, and is even against the law, to have registered you email (despite what the “form” said), and use it for a different “ad campaign”. In many countries every spam sender, requires a previous and explicit acceptance from the email owner, but this is never respected.
>
> I’ve got threatened by several of those organizations when I’ve tried to act against them, and unfortunately, I don’t see data protection agencies and governments taking a strong position/action on this, so Internet citizens are not protected.
>
> I think ISOC could invest in doing a good investigation on this (I’m happy to help, I’ve even a law proposal for governments to be able to fine/punish organizations hiring those illegal “spam” services), bring this data to lawyers, and start a few suites against those criminal organizations, so governments actually see the problem, make strong rules and enforce them.
>
> In summary, in my opinion “email marketing” should be only used for a company to advertise their *own* products to their *own* customers or interested ones that have explicitly agreed on that (which is what the law say in many countries, but is not getting enforced).
>
> I’m talking about spam, but the implications of what I explained above are related to security in general in the network, intrusion in our “own” devices and apps, and all kind of related cybercrimes, and in the near future, if we don’t act now, it will also have very serious implications in IoT and new developments.
>
> This week, during the RIPE meeting in Dubai, I learnt from ISOC staff about the OTA (https://otalliance.org/), which is now an ISOC activity. This is one of the topics I believe ISOC should invest. My view has two sides:
> a) The use of clouds is good (I don’t think is technically necessary with IPv6), but it requires SDOs, governments and industry to agree in ways to protect consumers. Short explanation. You by a device, it works only (or many of the best features) thru a cloud. Vendor goes to bankrupt, you throw away the device, even if it costed several hundred dollars. Possible solution, governments have laws (as in any other field, FCC, EC, UL, etc.), that mandate that every device being imported in a territory, either is not using cloud, or it has open and standard APIs so instead of using only the vendor “free” cloud can be attached/used to other ones without losing functionalities.
> b) Security of those devices. Any Internet or IoT device, must pass (the same as FCC, EC, etc.), minimum security testing to allow to be upgraded when security bugs are found, to avoid easily being hacked, etc. I recall when we had modems, that need to pass specific regulations, and you can’t bring them to your country is they don’t have got the certification number. Nothing new here, just a different way to “connect” (it was RJ45 before, now is IP).
>
> A possible path for both areas is having the same organizations doing those FCC, EC, UL, etc., testing, increasing their test, with the support from IETF or other SDOs when applicable, and making sure that governments and industry get together in supporting it and not allowing non-compliance devices to be in the market. I believe that having the same “certification” authorities, will not increase the “testing” cost, neither the “enforcement” cost (same border controls in customs when importing products), and vendors will have an “easy” way to follow those specs if we work together.
>
> In my opinion ISOC has the power and budget to do that, and again, I’m happy to work on this area and specially contribute to the discussion of possible paths.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Responder a: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de octubre de 2017, 11:21
> Para: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Asunto: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement
>
> Hi,
>
> the board of trustees of the Internet Society (ISOC) plans to revise
> ISOC's mission statement. We would like to get your comments on the
> proposal we include below. This email discusses the reasons for the
> proposed change, the process we have followed so far to put together
> the current proposal, and the next steps in the process.
>
> ISOC's current vision and mission statements were developed around
> 2005 and are available at ISOC's web page:
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/
>
> These statements have provided ISOC with a clear direction for many
> years and have been a useful tool for the community.
>
> What ISOC does in practice to fulfill its vision has evolved over
> time. Looking at the environment in which ISOC operates, there have
> been important changes (some external and some internal to ISOC) that
> make it desirable to revise those statements at this point.
>
> Externally, the current Internet environment is different from what it
> was when the current statements were developed: regional needs are
> different, communication patterns are different, and the
> standardization landscape is different. Internet users and, thus, also
> ISOC's chapters and members are more international and many of them
> come from developing countries.
>
> Internally, ISOC's revenue sources have increased significantly from
> 2005 until present. This means that ISOC's potential to realize its
> vision through activities has increased substantially and may still
> continue to increase in the near term. The board considers that simply
> increasing linearly everything ISOC does today would not be a viable
> or desirable approach. Building a large reserve without further
> advancing ISOC's social goals is not a good option either. Instead,
> ISOC will strengthen some of its current areas of engagement and, when
> appropriate, engage in new impactful activities in new areas.
>
> Our goal is to bring more focus into the organization. The idea is to
> avoid spreading ourselves too thin and, instead, increase ISOC's focus
> on activities that make a difference.
>
> In order to make those key decisions, staff, the board, and the
> community need to be on the same page regarding ISOC's vision and
> mission, and their underlying meaning. Given that many members of
> staff, the board, and the community were not around when the current
> statements were developed back in 2005, revising them with their
> involvement was considered to be a necessary exercise so that
> everybody feels them as their own. Getting a common sense of ownership
> is one of our main goals.
>
> In order to have a fresh look at our vision and mission, a set of
> workshops involving the whole staff were organized. Using an
> iterative process and taking the input from those workshops into
> consideration, further workshops involving the board and ISOC's senior
> management were organized with the help of a facilitator. Some of the
> workshops were virtual and some of them were face-to-face.
>
> The board had a face-to-face retreat where, based on all the work
> above, revised draft statements were generated. Those draft statements
> were sent to parts of the community (including IETF leadership, ISOC's
> emeriti trustees, and chapter and org members) to get initial
> comments. After gathering a good amount of initial community feedback,
> the board generated new proposed statements addressing the comments
> received. With the process above the board aimed to ensure that the
> revised statements take into account the perspectives of staff as well
> as our wider community.
>
> The resulting proposed statements (included below) are now ready to be
> sent to our whole community.
>
> During the process above, we agreed that ISOC's current vision and
> mission are still as valid as ever. With respect to the *statements*
> that capture the spirit of the vision and mission, we do not propose
> any changes to the vision statement.
>
> With respect to the mission statement, we propose to update it. One
> of the goals with the new statement is that it is both concise and
> memorable. Consequently, the mission is stated at a higher
> abstraction level and contains fewer points.
>
> The current mission statement included a list of activities ISOC
> performs to help achieve our mission. While it seems that list was not
> approved as part of the mission statement back in the day, the initial
> feedback we have gotten from the community clearly indicates that many
> consider capturing the list in an official way important. Therefore,
> we propose to keep those bullets as highlights of activities.
>
> It is worthwhile noting that, regardless of the outcome in the form of
> a revised mission statement, this process is being very useful in
> itself. It has clearly helped getting a better understanding about
> ISOC's purpose among everybody involved.
>
> Please, find the proposed statements below and share your comments
> with us on this list. Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo Camarillo (for the board)
> Chair - ISOC Board of Trustees
>
>
> --- Proposal ---
>
> Vision:
> -------
>
> The Internet is for everyone.
>
> Mission:
> --------
>
> The Internet Society champions the development of the Internet as a
> global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's
> lives, and a force for good in society.
>
> We work with the worldwide Internet community for an Internet that
> is open, globally-connected, and secure.
>
> Together, we focus on:
>
> - Building and supporting the communities that make the Internet work;
>
> - Advancing the development of Internet infrastructure,
> technologies, and open standards; and
>
> - Advocating for sound Internet policy around the world.
>
> Highlights of Activities:
> -------------------------
>
> To help achieve our mission, the Internet Society:
>
> - Facilitates open development of standards, protocols,
> administration, and the technical infrastructure of the Internet.
>
> - Supports education in developing countries specifically, and
> wherever the need exists.
>
> - Promotes professional development and builds community to foster
> participation and leadership in areas important to the evolution
> of the Internet.
>
> - Provides reliable information about the Internet.
>
> - Provides forums for discussion of issues that affect Internet
> evolution, development and use in technical, commercial, societal,
> and other contexts.
>
> - Fosters an environment for international cooperation, community,
> and a culture that enables self-governance to work.
>
> - Serves as a focal point for cooperative efforts to promote the
> Internet as a positive tool to benefit all people throughout the
> world.
>
> - Provides management and coordination for on-strategy initiatives
> and outreach efforts in humanitarian, educational, societal, and
> other contexts.
>
> --- End of Proposal ---
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.