Hi Keith, ah, now I see where you are coming from. Yes, we are also discussing whether ISOC should be closer to a neutral "convener" or, instead, "advocate" more strongly in certain areas... and the ideal role may depend on the particular area, actually. In summary, yes, we are thinking about it... and, FWIW, based on my discussions many IETFers share your view. Cheers, Gonzalo On 07/11/2017 9:38 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > Having "activities", and prominently taking a stand for what's right, are very different things. > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi Keith, >> >> yes, ISOC has activities on that front. For instance, a couple of weeks >> ago ISOC organized the following Chatham House Roundtable on Encryption >> and Lawful Access: >> >> https://www.chathamhouse.org/event/encryption-and-lawful-access >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 07/11/2017 2:00 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >>> Hi Gonzalo, >>> >>> Thanks your your reply. I understand that it's necessary to word things >>> carefully, but I hope ISOC can find a way to specifically call out both >>> mining of personal data (whether or not traceable to individual >>> identities) and mass surveillance (whether or not by state-supported >>> actors) as significant threats to the public welfare. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> On 11/06/2017 05:34 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Hi Keith, >>>> >>>> thanks for your comments. >>>> >>>>> In the context of ISOC it's important to understand that the Internet >>>>> can be used for good or ill, but it's in danger of becoming more of the >>>>> latter. Promoting the Internet as if it were a universal good, while >>>>> ignoring the various ways it can be used to exploit or harm its users, >>>>> does not seem either responsible or consistent with ISOC's history. >>>>> There are of course limits to what ISOC can do about it, but I don't >>>>> think ISOC should be silent and/or pretend that it's not a problem. >>>> I agree with you. In fact, this is a topic I also brought up in my >>>> closing talk at ISOC's 25th anniversary event a few weeks ago. In the >>>> past, it was assumed that more connectivity was always good. Nowadays, >>>> as you point out, ubiquitous and constant connectivity has clear >>>> downsides as well. In addition to the examples you discussed, Internet >>>> addiction and the social problems it is already causing in some parts of >>>> the world (e.g., increases in car accidents, social isolation, etc.) is >>>> an important concern as well. >>>> >>>> I also agree with you that there are clear limits to what ISOC can or >>>> should do about it. As I mentioned in previous emails, in addition to >>>> the work on the mission statement we are working on defining ISOC's >>>> scope in more detail in different areas, "policy" being one of them. We >>>> are currently working on identifying particular areas where, based on >>>> ISOC's capabilities, we should engage. We are also identifying areas >>>> where ISOC should not get involved. >>>> >>>> With respect to capturing this in the mission statement, the proposed >>>> text reads as follows: The Internet as "a force for good in society". >>>> That sentence tries to capture the social benefits we are after (as >>>> opposed to just wanting connectivity for the sake of it, without any >>>> "higher" purpose). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>> >