============================================================================== ISOC Document Title: Responses to Questionaire on Operation and Direction of the Society Author: A.M.Rutkowski Date: 6 Jun 1995 Body: Board of Trustees Document: 95-007 Revision: basic Supersedes: - Status: initial Maintainer: A.M.Rutkowski Access: unrestricted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responses were received from 1/3 of the trustees - 3 from outside the USA and 3 from inside. In addition, one short response* was received from one of the Advisory Council Officers. Not all trustees answered all questions. The order of responses has been ordered to place positive responses toward the top and negative toward the bottom, where applicable. ======================================================================= > 0 Board Activities ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would you like to see more continuing Board group activity? yes yes* it lumbers around sporadic bursts of email - which is about as good as it gets I suspect. I think the current level of activities is good as a whole. I personally like to see more regional (Asia/Japan) activities of ISOC or the Board. I think it isn't feasible for the board to act on a day to day basis. Individual members have been extremely helpful, but mostly through voluntary initiatives. I think that is as much as can be expected. no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would you like to see more Board committee activity? yes yes...I'd like to see standing committees on various activities like membership, standards, operations, etc.* yes - that would help to assign specific responsibilities and deadlies to individuals only exec Currently, I am satisfied to see the information supplied by Tony and Vint. Generally, it is fine if we will receive periodic notice, however I am afraid that it will make the headquarters more busy. No ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would you like to see more information about ISOC developments? > Weekly? Monthly? monthly would be optimal - weekly would be hard to sustain and would be unread by many. yes, as events dictate I think a monthly summary would be very beneficial I'd like to see more on this on at least a monthly basis* For face-to-face meetings, twice a year (INET and winter) is reasonable for me. For E-mail communications, I can read more messages. I personally like to participate in regional/local (Asia Pacific / Japan) activities, and try to do so. no, I think we are doing fine...except for the financial reports that Bev is working on.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would you make any more time available for ISOC activity? How much? yes...whatever I can, either as part of a speakers' buereau or one of the "standing comittees"* Right now the interaction is email and inherited speaking engagements. I wish I could but more than 10% is proving impossible putting in kinda a lot already no, I think I do my share. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What changes could improve Board operation? Run the board meetings tighter (less long rambling soapboxes and tighter concentration on the Society's priorities - which calls fro pretty tight meeting organisation and chairing!) and place more emphasis on the fund raising aspects of the Board members' responsibilities. involvment on the part of more board members More focus on increasing the value of the Internet Society to the general Internet community* Currently, we spend much time for discussing "procedural" issues. It is natural because ISOC is still a new organization. I hope we are going through our initial stage, and things will be more organized. Better preparation prior to board meetings. that all members get into the habit of contributing constructively ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What changes could improve your participation as a trustee? Get the active committees to phone conf every fortnight to make em concentrate on getting the work done! Assignment of specific responsibilities where possible. (not a trustee...)* I felt that I was extremely busy dont know. not much, I think I'm generally active ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Can more Board material be made available via the network - and > especially via WWW? I think this is basically OK I don't see how, you seem to get everthing out on the web real quick - and until we have secure access I would not like to put some of the more in-progress out I do not know if "more" material will be made available or not. I think that using WWW server is a reasonable way to provide information at low cost. I'd like to see the minutes of each board meeting and standing committee meeting put on the WWW server* yes and no - PUT IT UNDER THEIR NOSES BY BOMBING THE MAILBOXES. The web reference is too easily put off to a leter (never) date. Are there access controls possible for some WWW material? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What do you like most about the Board? Like least? jeez - I never thought about it as a like/not like thing - I viewed it as being there to assist the Society get underway. best - generally good people, some in particular, least - need more of a presence of an active prez & we get bogged down in discussion and do not get much actually done we must get the damn charter members out of the way - not the people as much as the structure - I do not expect to maintain my involvment in the society after the next board meeting if that does not get fixed - I feel that the society is dead if that can not get fixed - too many vocal people consider this a fundamental flaw Good: All the Board members are seriously considering the Internet. Bad: Sometimes, we spend too much time (many messages) for discussion. It's a broad cross-cut of the community world wide. But maybe it is too big? most: working with colleagues who are active in making the Internet grow. least: the charter members' blocking of required changes. The Charter Members - while they've greatly contributed to ISOC, I believe that the charter memberships have outlived their usefulness. I'd also like to see term limits on trustees (X terms or X years)* ======================================================================= > 1 Internet Society - Generally ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What's the most important role of the Society? Second most important? 1 - positioning itself as the international body which promulates the technology and administrative and social framework which is the Internet. 2 - funding the promulgation activities of 1 #1 - support of IETF ($ & otherwise) #2 - pushing the net 1) Provide a neutral umbrella for the "regulation" of the Internet, notably for standard-making and world wide registrations. 2) Help propagate knowledge about the Internet, so that it reaches new circles, e.g. new users, new countries. The Society has failed. It should admit it and disband.* 1) to provide for "explicit coverage" for the internet standards process 2) to grow the individual membership to the millions on a dilligent basis. First: Although the Internet, or computer networks, promote the concept of "distributed" society, we need some central point of authority. Since many organizations around the Internet is not solid, like a group of volunteers. ISOC is a slid organization, and can be a center of related organizations. Second: As discussed at earlier board meeting(s), ISOC should provide and maintain the "CODE OF CONDUCT" in the Internet. Acting to facilitate coordination of Internet evolution, development and operation. Second is support for standards. Third is provision of unbiased information about the Internet to the public. first: contribution to standards process. second:conference, newsletter and general info on the Internet. third: support infrastructure. The most important role is to promote the health and welfare of the Internet, in the arenas of regulation, standards, education and other aspects. Secondarily, I believe ISOC should be an umbrella organization for operational aspects of the Internet (e.g. the InterNIC should be part of ISOC, as should CERT, FIRST, etc.). There is a need for a central operational point and ISOC is really the natural place to have it. I've been told by others that ISOC is viewed as a big boondoggle and it really doesn't function as much other than as funding for IETF. ISOC, to function as a useful and important part of the Internet community, needs to change this perception by modifying it's focus.* ======================================================================= 1.1 Membership ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How should resources be split between individual and org membership > (e.g., 50-50, 25% org-75% individual, ...)? The split between individual members and organizational members would there be approximately 99.9999% individual and perhaps .0001% organizational plus or minus a decimal point or two. With 100 organizational members and 10,000,000 individual members the latter percentage is .0001%. The activities which individual members like and those for organizational members are different, I think. Then, I prefer much resources are spent for individual members. Use chapters increasingly for individual member support. Helping chapters may still consume resources so a 50-50 split may still make sense. I guess you mean staff resources. 50-50. huh - how should ISOC SPEND its money or how should it GET its money? A large individual membership is its own authority, but companies are easy targets in terms of work per dollar. if you mean $ income - 75% org, 25% ind if you mean #s of members - 80% org, 20% ind if you mean expenditures - 20%org/ind 80% other I don't believe that a preset target helps. However, we should make our best efforts to attract a large membership. The 4000 figure which I heard lately is way too low. I don't think it's a big deal what the actual percentages are* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How should be best attract organizational members? as now By allowing them to use the term "ISOC MEMBER" and use a suitable trademark (cf "Intel Inside logo) on all their material, and provide them with a briefing service (monthly?) on what good things their money does. By fulfilling its role. According to my experience in [ ], organizational members like to see how they are contributing to the Internet, like IETF (or making standard) and recent operational issues. They like to be "informed". It is helpful if we can circulate "up-to-date" information among organizational members. There is apparently much information in the Internet, however there is little "important" information. Assign board members to track them down; provide a regular report of issues, actions of the Society, alerts about global problems. by offering them something: contribution to standards process. The option of the advisory council seating trustees would not hurt either. by selling the idea that ISOC is the bearer of the mission of keeping the Internet healthy and from being unfairly exploited from special-interest groups (levelling the playing field, or keeping it non-politicized)* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How should be best attract individual members? as now The newsletter (paper - its a lousy answer, but nevertheless an answer for today). Aside from paper the only other thng I can suggest is access to discounted goods and services. By letting known that its missions are important. (It is related to the journal publishing described below.) Provide information that users can USE to make the Internet more accessible and help users learn about volunteer opportunities. via chapters. Maybe by providing education to users on the Internet and having ISOC serve the role of protecting individual "rights" on the Internet (keeping the Internet open). Basically, individuals want to see their memberships being used to support "The Internet" and get some value back for it* ======================================================================= > 1.2 Public role ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is it important for the Society to be a highly publicly visible > organization? yes yes Yes. yes. yes* Yes, I think so. Don't know about "The" most, but it should certainly be very visible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is it important for the Society to be internationally the umbrella for the > Internet? This, I believe should be the core mission of ISOC* Yes. (It is related to my answer to the question of "the most important role of ISOC.) too broad a question PR umbrella - ok $ umbrella - no operational umbrella - no For the Internet as a whole, probably not. For the Internet standards, certainly. unbiased technical and statistical information. tutorial material. highlighting international issues. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What kind of public information role is appropriate? authoratitive comment - the voice of reference and authority. as now, info & speaking (1) an Internet speakers' buereau would be great (2) providing "expert" opinions (maybe based on some standing body) for various Internet questions* Publication on the Internet. Sponsorship of conferences. Communications to the mass media. as the umbrella body for the Internet and its development. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society take public positions? Related to Internet > implementation, yes yes - we are already behind open standards (as against propriatary standards) yes, but these should generally be non-national policy positions which have to do with the health of the Internet. yes, but carefully. Emphasis on not just addressing US issues. If the question is about the operation of the Internet, the answer is "generally no". It is the responsibility of service providers. However, ISOC can encourage people in developing countries to have a physical link (does it mean "implementation"?). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How important are media relations? What degree of resources > should be devoted to fostering media relations? quite It is very important, but it shall follow actual results, not precede them. It is important to have good relations to media. However, the resources are limited and we cannot provide enough resources, I think. Interesting - ISOC can get sucked into being asked for a response relating to just about EVERYTHING on the net. I would revert to the press release for most things, and only devote the time to stories which feature the role of ISOC within the Internet structure (sell stories) This can easily be a black hole as we've discovered. I think we need to discriminate more between important and unimportant media opportunities. Possibly try to use Donna Leggett as a filter? I'm not sure ======================================================================= > 1.3 Chapters ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How important are Society chapters? very very important - local presence - local people - very important It is very important. Now, the Internet is growing all over the world. very I think these are key to a growing individual member base. quite. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What should be the primary role of chapters? Secondary? Primary: Provide information in local language, especially in countries where non-English is spoken. Secondary: Attract more members, especially in countries where US dollar is very expensive. Provide venue for local/regional interations. Resource for information flow to members. Platform for national, regional or local issues discussions be local focus points for the Internet e.g. for organizing meetings, do local lobbying, address (national) government on policy, discussion forum for service providers, discuss local cooperation, development and implementation, address media. should be a feed of ISOC individual members. local presence and local pressure local administration that falls into the "common problem" #1 - local organization & meetings - can take into account local issues #2 - providing speakers at local events #3 - local special purpose meetings #N - $ to ISOC creating a sense of community among internauts. ======================================================================= > 1.4 Liaison ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How important is it to maintain liaison with other related organizations? > Should we be seeking joint ventures with other organizations (e.g., IEEE, > ACM...)? very I don't know about explicit joint ventures, but I think it is healthy to look for common interests with IEEE, ACM, ITU, ISO, ... My preference is to do specific things (co-sponsored events, conferences, working group meetings) rather than forming long-term, complex relationships. Certainly, certification by ISO would be helpful* It is fine if we can have something, like joint publishing of journals. Currently, ISOC has INET conference and a magazine. Having an academic journal will attract academic people. not very - not unless there is either a) money or b) membership increase as a result. Not very much. It was important initially, to obtain some degree of recognition; achieving the liaison with the ITU is still important in that respect. Most of the other liaisons are very low priority. One could envisage joint sponsorship of workshop or conferences, but I would not go much farther. don't know. ======================================================================= > 1.5 Publications ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is it important to more aggressively distribute OnTheInternet? yes well, I don't know how aggressive the new set-up is, but yes, it should be distributed widely. OnTheInternet should start going out on the NY/Boston/DC shuttles to start - Wendy should be familiar with the procedure since the Educom Review is distributed that way. I'd like to know what the business implications are of any kind of newsstand sales - tax implications, risks, costs. Errors and Omissions liability insurance will be important.It would be nice to finally get the Journal under way, but I think we should delay a bit until we see how Wendy does with OnTheInternet. It will take much more editorial effort to do a journal, I think - much more volunteer review... In the last several months, I've only seen one issue of OnTheInternet...I think we need a publication with a little more regularity and frequency in appearance I think there might also be a calling for subscription-based "specialty" publications, not unlike what IEEE or ACM do* I cannot evaluate the current circulation of OnTheInternet, since I am in [ ] where most journals and magazines are written in [ ]. Other publications: It is fine if we can have an academic journal, possibly jointly with ACM or IEEE. Actually, they (ACM and IEEE) have a joint journal already. so so The Internet Society should primariliry communicate through the Internet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Are there other publications ISOC should pursue? How important? ISOC should be the publisher of the RFCs in the WEB on an ISOC system as the publisher or record. We should be doing the indexing to streams (INFO, DRAFT, etc) and doing indexing to allow searching. And we should look at publishing the complete RFC collection on CD annually. (It should have done this years ago but we never got around to getting it done.) One could envisage joint sponsorship of workshop or conferences, but I would not go much farther. noty at this time don't know. ======================================================================= > 1.6 Secretariat ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Are you satisied with the role and management of the Secretariat > (be candid)? Yes, I am satisfied. They have helped me much. yes too few for the job. not enough feedback to board on what is happening with specific things like the insurance - I've requested a number of documents on issues like this so that I can pass them on to the IESG and have not received them. we need a far better relationship with the IETF than we have and much of the current problem is lack of infomation flow - I think that you make public statements that have been misunderstood as formal ISOC policy (or just misunderstood) that have hurt us and we need to be very careful about this I'm also not happy with the problems we had over the ops conf some my fault but I thought that I would get more active support than I did (conference person etc) There have been some "fast shot" initiatives in the past. I think we've allowed some loose ends where we should have been much more careful. More attention to cost reporting and controls, more care in contract negotiation, and better business planning and reporting come to mind. The staff has done very well in largely overloaded conditions. We should review how the addition of staff has helped (and whether it has helped!) in the fall. Relations with IETF haven't been satisfactory, really, and while a lot of this is due, no doubt, to personalities, I think a concerted effort is needed to put this relationship right again. Almost certainly a face/face meeting of iesg and isoc trustees is needed or, at least, isoc officers and iesg. And perhaps some representation from the IAB for good measure. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What activities could/should the Secretariat be doing? more of the same! seems like it is undertaking about the right mix of things, the board needs more info on what is going on (so do the members most of whom have no idea what we do) Better synchronisation with IAB and IETF secretariat. (It is related to my answer to the question on APNIC.) I think we have not been able to organize volunteers as effectively as we might. This is largely a staff time problem, but we might advertise opportunities to volunteers in the same way we advertise support opportunities to organizations. the financial reports ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What could be improved? numbers! I'm not sure - there is a fine line between self serving & info I do not know how to draw the line I hope the situation is getting better. I feel the most serious problem with the secretariat is that they are all very busy. Possibly, we need more staff and I hope the new members will make the situation much better. Regular reporting will help - I think you have been doing better at that - and I like it but don't know if that feeling is echoed among other trustees. ======================================================================= > 1.7 Advisory Council ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How important is the Advisory Council? Should it's role be > increased, decreased, about right? increase the role - put 3 council elected trustees on the Board as voting members - show em that their money COUNTS! In my view, the ISOC AC isn't being listened to. We have many people with lots of years of Internet experience and with the amount of funding our companies provide ISOC, I think we should have more of a voice in the ISOC mission. At the same time, there's no hidden agenda. The AC provides counsel based on the best interests of the Internet and ISOC, not of the sponsoring companies.* Since the organizational support still constitutes 80% of the ISOC income, these people are important to us. However, the council itself may be an ineffective forum in which to work with these members. There are so many that doing things one on one is really not possible. What about pairing up trustees with organizational members? (too time consuming for trustees???) important for finances, of course. we should listen, but not just to the most outspoken members. they should be allowed to seat board members important - stay the same I am the secondary (alternative) representative of [ ] (a founding member). The advisory council is functioning as "advisers" to ISOC. I still hope that organizational members will receive more information (not limited to the activities of the council) from ISOC. (This answer is related to "how to attract org members".) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What more can/should be done concerning the Council? monthly "briefings" about ISOC affairs. get the Council executive to phone conf monthly and include the conf's minutes in the briefing. Get the council to continue to spur the Trustees out of an overly complacent attitude about the source of the money. they need to feel that they are in the loop, we need to ask more of them & follow up when they do not produce We need to get them out of mob mode somehow. don't know. ======================================================================= > 2 Internet Developmental and Administrative Infrastructure ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How important is it for the Society to assume responsibility for > this infrastructure? someone is going to have to do it - any other sensible suggetions? ISOC should lead the effort to facilitate global coordination. Of the following five areas, which is (are) the most important for the Society to play an active role in? Least important? 1 Standards and Applications Development (IETF, IRTF, IESG, W3C) 2 Architecture Management (IAB) 3 Naming and Addressing (IANA, regional NICs, national NICs) 4 Security (FIRST, CERTs, IPRA) 5 Operational (IEPG, regional OGs, CIX, RAs) In my view, the most important thing ISOC to be doing is (3), the NICs...certainly the others are just as important. I'd like to see ISOC oversee all of these* In developed countries, the role of ISOC is rather limited. However, in certain countries or regions, ISOC would be the only organization which can advise/recommend local government or UN related organizations. The actual need varies from country to country, but there is something we can do for them. we should be careful to to try to do everything! But I think we should assume responsibility in principle and also support operational tasks where no better solution is existing. This is a wrong approach. The question should be "how important is it for the Internet", not "for the Society". It is important for the Internet that the responsability for some key functions, e.g. address assignment, lies in a neutral point and not in a specific government. it is important that the society *not* do this ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How aggressive should the Society be in this area? very I _like_ the Randy approach - getting someone else at the sharp end and offering organisational legitimacy and funding careful to cooperate with existing structures. But there can still be a role. The Society should be very careful not to disrupt the existing infrastructure. In practice, the IANA and the IETF work fine. aggressivlly *not* be active ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How much of ISOC's revenues should be devoted to funding these > activities? Ultimately I would like to see about 25-30% of ISOC funding going to this kind of effort. A sufficient part, so that the Society is perceived as an helpful source of funding, not an unwanted political competition. it should MAKE money. I do not have an idea of how much. Fortunately, things are cheap in most developing countries or regions. hmmm, I guess this requires a bit more of background. at this point I would say 0 my problem here is that we do not have the buy-in of the operators - this type of task must be done *only* after the providers of the connection service feel that 1/ someone should do it & 2/ the isoc is that someone - I do not see that this is the case. - we should stay out ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Of the following five areas, which is (are) the most important > for the Society to play an active role in? Least important? > 1 Standards and Applications Development (IETF, IRTF, IESG,W3C) top priority as far as I can tell very important - perhaps most important to support Currently: 1 an active SUPPORT role To me, all this looks like a hodgepodge of uncorrelated acronyms. Relation with the IETF/IESG/IRTF should be performed through IAB, relation with NICs should be through the IANA (and IAB, actually). W3C is a commercial venture, in which the Society plays no role. Supporting the IAB, the IETF and also the IRTF is indeed very important - that would be number 1. Supporting IANA would be a close 2nd. I have some doubts about the inclusion of the Web consortium here. Seems to me that the society does not play any role in it, except through the IETF. hmmm all important ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 2 Architecture Management (IAB) Currently: 2 SUPPORT seems to be OK without much additional help/some admin assistance hmmm all important the IAB is mostly irrelevant - we should support them but not much more ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3 Naming and Addressing (IANA, regional NICs, national NICs) critical area for leadership here very important regional NICs - only if regional providers agree national NICs - a tarpit - can not be associated with a provider INVOLVEMENT Currently: 3 hmmm all important ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4 Security (FIRST, CERTs, IPRA) Providing help to security organisation should be looked at very carefully. IPRA is a registration board, which would very logically fall in the same category as the IANA. CERT and FIRST are existing organisations, and we should not attempt an hostile takeover. We may propose to help them spreading information, and we may foster research in the IRTF. In the near future: more emphasis should be put on: 4 we can not take on the liability that much of this causes the CERT must remain government funded with a specific mission from the government so that the libality goes back to the government. The IPRA semed like a good idea but I do not currently think that it will go anywhere. I'm not sure what FIRST is. may be dealt with through vendor forums, but users seems to want neutral, trusted party to handle. moderately important - perhaps more intermediate term. Perhaps 4 could most easily be left to others. least ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 5 Operational (IEPG, regional OGs, CIX, RAs) middle In the near future: more emphasis should be put on: 5 Could be an important role for ISOC - facilitation hmmm all important I would be extremely careful with anything related to operations. no no no - we shoud not be involved in these unless *they* request an umbrella ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is it important to provide for the AP-NIC? Yes, it is very important. Establishing APNIC as a new organization is rather difficult in Asia/Pacific region. For example, having a new non-profit organization is Japan takes much time and money. Moreover, we should talk to some government organization to get an approval to establish it. If ISOC can play the role of an umbrella organization, it makes things much simpler, I hope. There is an organization called APNG (formerly APCCIRN/APEPG). APNIC was started under APNG. There is a proposal to re-organize APNG to have ISOC-AP. Many people are supporting the idea. Still some people told me that the membership fee of ISOC is still expensive for most Asian people and organizations and it will take time to actually re-organize APNG. yep well, we just decided to support it, so yes. yes, if no other method is found. I do not know enough about the support of the regional providers for such a move No. That should be the task of a regional organisation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society pursue any of the Secretariat functions? Near- > term? Long-term? If it is related to APNIC, yes. It is fine if ISOC-AP will be established and APNIC will be under ISOC-AP. It is much like IANA under ISOC. I assume you mean IETF secretariat here? I think we should undertake to support but not necessarily try to operate ourselves. I assume you mean the IETF Secretariat - if so mixed feelings I go along with what Schiller said - if Secretariat is a service of a charter member this is a real problem, if that is solved then Secretariat location not an issue. I'd just as soon see it move to the ISOC for the people involved and the image it gives that teh ISOC is supporting the IETF but otherwise I do not see it as a very big issue AP-NIC secretariat, not if it can be handled by othes as I thought was the plan. The question is too open-ended. If the idea is that the society should takee over the IETF secretariat, my opinion is "no". Again, we should help, not prey. no - the strategy of putting additional resources into the IESG is a winner - lets wait out CNRI on the IETF Secretariat function. ======================================================================= > 3 Internet Infrastructure ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What is the level of priority of this work in the Society? An important area justifying focused attention. important medium high on policy level (competition, deregulation). Low on operational As I mentioned earlier, this kind of activities are important in some countries or regions. The Society should not be involved in actual operations. It may encourage and educate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society play a continuing role in itself developing proposals > for developing country projects? yes *only* where there is not a conflict with a commerical provider trying to work in the same area - can not be seen as competing with our own people yes assuming they fall on receptive ears. i'm not sure ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society play a pro-active role in facilitating others > to engage in infrastructure activities? yes yes yes Yes. The actual role cannot be described in general. yes, but not too many resources ======================================================================= > 4 Regulatory and Trade Information and Advocacy, Internet Norms ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What is the level of priority of this work in the Society? Importance? regulatory - high trade info - high internet norms - medium We should encourage discussion, provide an open forum for this, but we should keep at arms length from appearing to "make jurisdiction" Top priority. Very important. could be vital to organizatoinal interests - reporting of issues in GATT, etc. stay international in focus medium hmm - thats a sell job - its not widely recognised as a BIG problem today. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should this activity be closely managed or operated semi-autonomously > at arms length? tight name association. mixed - depends on specific activity Anyway, we should watch carefully. If the world will be peaceful, we do not have many things to do. However, if there will be some trouble, ISOC will be the only organization which can act neutrally and internationally. closely managed - no arms length, high risk operations, please. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Specifically, what's your reaction to a Global Networking Institute? positive. I like it, but not if the participants run off without supervision. OK, but lets see what it delivers. don't know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Specifically, what's your reaction to an Internet Law Task Force? positive positive keep at arms length but its a good idea It is appropriate for ISOC to encourage such activities. I like this, too, with the proviso above. I think the subject area is vital to Internet interests and am puzzled by negative reactions on the board. ======================================================================= > 5 Conferences ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What is the level of priority of this work in the Society? Currently, very high. high Reasonably high, at least for the annual meeting. potentially a major fund raiser and critical service to members. medium hmm - 1,500 people come to a conf out of xM users? I've really got to question INET confs as a somewhat refined academic exercise while the marketplace has come along ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How big should scale scale INET? Should ISOC grow the > vendor exhibit aspect of INET? I think we should be shooting for 2500 to 5000 attendees. I have been reluctant to turn into a trade fair, so the present experiment in Hawaii is of great interest. ISOC should contract out the vendor space and see whether this can make money. I don't see the vendor exhibit being a problem or a hinderance to INET. The income would be helpful and there are folks who enjoy seeing the latest products* max scale ~1000 people, no trade show! Growing much above the current size would make it very hard to manage. And, no, this should not be one more Interop - except if we actually colocate it with Interop. There should be some "moderate" size. If it will become too large, it will be difficult to host it. For vendor exhibition, I do not think it is the primary role of INET, nor ISOC. about right now ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > How big should scale scale NDSS? Should ISOC initiate a > vendor exhibit aspect of NDSS? yes max scale 800 people, mixed view of vendor exibit Now many people are interested in NDSS. It is OK to have a limited scale exhibition. According to my experience in INTEROP Program Committee, we need more staff to conduct large exhibitions. I think NDSS wants to be workshoppy at about 200+ attendees. Dunno about exhibit - they can if they want to. Academic. don't know ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should ISOC pursue Summit conferences? yes - I like this concept - the "decision makers conference" a real niche market with top dollar per attendee if correctly sold with better involvement from the providers - yes I think we should clarify the focus of the Summit. don't know ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should ISOC pursue 2nd tier (i.e., non-backbone) ISP conferences? yes We may sponsor them, the way IEEE or ACM do. It is interesting. I liked the ISP focus idea. don't know no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should ISOC assume responsibility for the WWW conferences? will they let us ? We may sponsor them, but we should not try to pursue hostile take over. I do not know. Could you tell me how WWW committee feels? this could be a killer - for this I would want a very well-defined business plan. no no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Are their other conferences ISOC should be pursuing? Possibly, we should look into regional (especially in developing region) meetings. none that I can think of Lets do well what we already do. I don't think so, but I do like the possibility of doing "awareness" sessions for business and government. Maybe more facilitating work with K12?? no - ISOC is not a conference company. (I could be wrong here - but don't forget you are talking about US conferences for an Intnl body - I'd stay clear of being dragged down the US conference path too much. don't know ======================================================================= > 6 Workshops and Tutorials ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > What is the level of priority of this work in the Society? Maximum priority for the international/annual worksop. quite high high - needs to be sold to the media as a real positive thing Yes, the workshops are important activities. The real issue is funding, possibly. This should be cecentralized, through organized appendices of the society, e.g. IAB, IRTF, maybe also a "user forum". medium ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society increase the number and locations of the > Developing Country Workshops? oddly enough - a single annual event can generate a higher media profile about ISOC helping the developing countries yes, do more local to a region, in native languages Yes if we can do so on a regional basis. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society begin doing K-12 Workshops and tutorials? yes Yes. The issue is again the funding. According to my experience in [ ] K-12 activities, school teachers do not have enough budget. only if a business plan makes it sensible. no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society engage in a broad array of tutorials and > Workshops on continuing basis? It is difficult to say yes/no generally. only if a business plan makes it sensible. needs a business case hmm - revenue wise its very marginal - its a lever to corporate funding if the media value is high enough. no ======================================================================= > 7 Legal Initiatives ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society be aggressively promoting its efforts to > "free" the Internet trademark? yes - this is now urgent. Yes. the cost appears to be low - yes Absolutely...in addition, it should be partnering with other organizations such as EFF* yes but we should have long ago gotten much more publicity and funding from others with a stake I thought we had decided so already I could only respond if I had a cost/benefit assessment in front of me. ======================================================================= > 8 Humanitarian Assistance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is this work important to the Society? Yes, it is important. However, I cannot evaluate the current level of activities. medium We should concentrate on education and spreading knowledge. I'm not sure ISOC is at the level of "maturity" to really take on more of this type of activity. We have a few things we need to do "in house" first not very no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is the present level of activity sufficient (namely funding > Peter Anderson's work)? I would like to see Peter Anderson take a more active role in helping volunteers assist. probably I have not seen all that much about it so can not say I am not satisfied, but would await board opinions. ======================================================================= > 9 Awards, Scholarships, and Interns ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society seek to expand its activities in providing > opportunities for interns? yes yes yes I think that there's an opportunity to have companies sponsor awards & scholarships that are given out/managed by ISOC. I think the system is quite new. Let me see how it works. no ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society's awards activity be increased? yes again this is a lever for corporate funding so yes - as longs as its a highly visible award which may include a particular corporate member as the award sponsor. relevent, but best left to volunteers in my opinion* no No. no ======================================================================= > 10 Internet Museum and Archives ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is this a relevant role for the Society? or leave it to others? If some other organization will support it, leave it to others. If not, ISOC should do something. I think facilitation is about right - use the Computer Museum and Smithsonian in the US, similar orgs outside. not relevant to ISOC - can go in with some museum at most leave to others. don't mind collecting bits but don't use resources on it leave it to others ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Should the Society promote more resources for this work, or > leave it to volunteers to appear? It has nice synergy with the "education and spreading knowledge" part. Again, the cost has to be assessed. volunteers leave it unless a museum partnership I would tend to let this be volunteer driven ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 11 What else is missing? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- this is a broad set of questions - I don;t have anything else to add after all that! you should have asked aboout the reorg (end of 3rd year & charter membership), insurance issues etc increase membership, both indiv and org =======================================================================