Would you not agree that the main way for people to ensure integrity (of ISOC and its chapters) is by participating actively? Chapters need IETF participants to take an active interest and not be shy of taking leading roles in setting up working activities and joining local boards. Political perceptions of the Internet get swayed much higher up the stack than the IP layer. Particularly if a policy wonk sniffs a low hanging fruit to solve a pet political agenda. It takes considerable perseverance and patience as well as clue to engage the political sphere with the implications of the underpinnings of an open network infrastructure in face of these snake oil salesmen in the application spaces. I agree with Scott that ISOC ought to keep the principles that distinguish the IETF front and centre of its own mission and actively encourage participation of IETF people in ISOC, particularly in the chapters which are volunteer led and barely supported by ISOC (although changes to this are starting to happen I understand). Just because IETF votes for three or so trustees in ISOC should not be the end or even the beginning of engagement by those in IETF in their local technical community. An ISOC chapter can become a useful focal point. But only if the technical community deigns to join in locally and participate that way. Christian John C Klensin wrote: > (Trying to change the subject line because this really isn't > about the mission statement) > > --On Saturday, November 25, 2017 4:52 PM +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Second, there aren't, and as far as I recall never have been, >>> any chapters in New England. (A couple of time folks have >>> tried to start one in Boston, and given up for lack of any >>> reason to.) > > Miles, I think "no reason" is a mis-characterization. At least > from my perspective, a very significant part of the problem was > that the folks who would have needed to be the core of an ISOC > chapter (or, if you prefer, without whom an ISOC chapter would > not be credible) have been too busy with other things, notably, > as the IETF has been putting it, "Making the Internet work > better" in technical and substantive ways. Speaking for myself > only, although I suspect some who are even more active > contributors to the technical work of the IETF may share my > view, I'd rather have no ISOC chapter than one that would be of > very high risk of being captured by folks who wanted to pursue > specific social or political causes in the name of such a > chapter and whose take on those issues might be very different > than mine, and to do so in an environment in which I wouldn't > have time or energy to make counterarguments. Normally, I > ignore such things, or on the assumption that diversity of > opinions is a good thing, encourage them, but I have been > confident that a Boston chapter would be taken (or promoted) as > speaking for me whether or not I had anything to do with it. > The success of the IETF Boston Hub (or whatever it is called > these days) may or may not reinforce that view of the > appropriateness of an ISOC Chapter and that, along with the GBC > ACM-IEEE collaboration may, further cut into available cycles. > > Is that fair from an ISOC voting standpoint to those of us for > whom an active chapter structure does not seem appropriate? I > don't think so either. But, as Brian and others have pointed > out, no one has come up with a better suggested arrangement yet. > >> Local chapters wax and wane, and are very subject to the >> personalities and motivations of their founders. Some work, >> some don't. (The Geneva chapter, of which I was the first >> President in ~1995 iirc, crashed and burned by 2009 due to >> lack of activity, but was followed by the current active Swiss >> chpater. But most of the chapters today are in the developing >> world, which is great.) > > Great except for one thing, which is that, AFAICT, several, > perhaps many, of those chapters have been captured by a small > number of people who, judging from appearances, have found them > very useful as personal platforms or career-boosters. Maybe > that is ok (or the best that can be done in the short term) for > a given chapter, but, to the extent to which is gives a > relatively small number of people with a focus on very local > concerns (even if they have global ambitions) disproportionate > representation on the Board, it is something that should at > least be monitored as we go forward. > > best, > john > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------------------