On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:21 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I’m not taking "that approach” at all. I’m trying to point out that a strong > majority our elected representatives, particularly most of the ones who are > powerful members of the ruling parties, view the fundamental concept of an > Internet Society as essentially unacceptable. In that light, I think that > revising the ISOC mission statement to align better with their view of the > world would be to neuter the ISOC completely. I’m not sure that’s an outcome > I would support, but I do think pretending that we aren’t doing that is a > road to failure. That is nonsense. If you begin by assuming absolute bad faith on the part of all elected representatives then yes, you are going to end up in the meat grinder because you refuse to recognize any legitimacy to their concerns whatsoever. The pathology of US regulation is that industry assumes that all regulation will be utterly unacceptable, resists all attempts to come to any form of common understanding and eventually ends up being hit by a series of punitive regulations that are then taken as evidence that the system is broken.