Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx> · Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:26:39 +0100



    Dear Miles,

    
    two quick responses from two of your emails - that I have treated in
    one email.

    
    On 24/11/2017 21:21, Miles Fidelman
      wrote:

    
      ISOC's "experience and skill in working with governments" stems
      primarily from the work of key individuals, many of them
      associated with IETF (and ARIN, and ICANN), who have both
      credibility and direct involvement in Internet governance.  ISOC,
      as an organization & a community has simply been along for the
      ride.
    
    
    Having been at ground zero at WCIT12 I can tell you that was not the
    case at all. ISOC staff-developed white papers were key to many of
    the arguments that governments which ended up not signing were
    reading to develop their arguments. ISOC was a great fact resource.
    Key individuals were indeed there too, but everything did not rest
    on their shoulders. My understanding, although I have not had time
    to be on the ground at ITU F2F meetings since then, whether
    Plenipot, WTSA, WTDC, is that ISOC still fulfils that role well. 

    
    On 24/11/2017 23:07, Miles Fidelman
      wrote:

    
    Given
      that the only folks who actually have a vote on anything are
      organizational members - which include carriers who might be
      subject to government action – ISOC starts to look a lot like an
      industry association, and does not really have a particularly
      legitimate standing to talk about policy in the public interest. 
      (I also note that the by-laws, which specify how Trustees are
      selected, can be amended by a vote of the Trustees.)
    
    
    The Chapters vote too. Part of the BoT is chosen by Chapters.

    Kindest regards,

    
    Olivier

    
    -- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html