On 11/25/17 6:49 AM, 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.
I tend to agree with you on that.
From a sample of one, my observations of the last attempt to form a
Boston chapter - which managed to have a few rather uninspired meetings
(I think I went to an attempt at an organizational meeting, and one
other): The organizers were a combination of some rather poor
technologists (you know, the folks who "left" technical management jobs
to form consulting shops - and saw involvement as a way to drum up
business) and folks who had more of a social policy interest. The real
technologists were too busy working (Boston/Cambridge is kind of ground
zero for a lot of the community - who needs an ISOC chapter when you've
got MIT, BBN, et. al.). And the real social policy types were involved
in things like CPSR. As you say, a Boston ISOC chapter certainly would
not have been speaking for me.
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.
As I commented separately - I'd personally rather have seen ISOC start
with a self-perpetuating Board or organize as a true professional
association (akin to IEEE). From both a governance standpoint and as a
standards body & policy shop, it seems to "work" (I do think the IETF
standards process is far better than IEEEs, but in terms of governance &
administration, IEEE is a good model).
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.
Agreed completely.
Which makes me think that the critical issues in ISOC governance really
should be:
1. Stewardship of the IETF as the Internet standards body (the original
and still critical role of ISOC).
2. Providing a reputable policy voice regarding Internet issues.
Regarding 1: I understand why IETF was not explicitly mentioned in the
Articles of Incorporation - flying under the radar and all that, but in
2017, when IETF isn't even mentioned in the mission statement, and only
peripherally mentioned in the latest (2016) bylaws, it concerns me that
the whole purpose of ISOC is getting lost. Yes, IETF gets to fill a few
board seats, but it still has become the tail, instead of the dog.
(And, I note that this discussion is happening on the ietf e-list -
where I would expect more people to be concerned.)
Regarding 2: When votes only go to organizational members, and
"Platinum Members," with a weighted vote, include Comcast and
NBCUniversal, one gets a bit leery of ISOCs ability to give unbiased
advise on things like Network Neutrality (excuse me, Common Carriage and
Anti-Trust, to use regulatory language that has more of a clearly
understood history & grounding). One might also question the influence
of groups like ICANN and ARIN, when IETF has a contractual relationship
with them and sets standards to be implemented & managed (and enforced?)
by them. It's all just a bit to rife with conflict of interest.
Somehow, I see all of this getting lost in the discussion of the new
mission statement. It kind of suggests a lack of transparency
surrounding the real issues of ISOC governance (which might be
intentional, or not; and it might even be desirable, or not).
Miles
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra