🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Merel (pete@zip.com.au) wrote:
: 
: Before a body can claim to represent the Internet in Australia it'll
: need to cover a lot of ground - I'm immediately curious about how
: ISOC-AU will relate to and distinguish itself from ACS, EFA, INTIAA and
: the stronger regional bodies like WAIA. 
 
Discussion about this is taking place on the inet-issues list (to 
subscribe see the ISOC-AU web page, http://www.isoc-au.org.au/).
  
The organisations you mention are professional or social or industry 
ones - Geoff Huston pointed out the differences in a recent letter:

  The Society body (as I see it) ascribes to the common issues of the
  deployment and use of the Internet itself, and _most critically_ does
  so from the perspective of the individuals who use, work and live
  within this network.

: Would ISOC-AU take over any of
: the infrastructure roles that aarnet^h^h^h^h^h^htelstranet presently
: manages, and would it shoulder some of the thankless burdens like IP
: registry that (hopefully) most people are now content to rationalise?

That's going to depend upon what people decide they want an ISOC-AU to 
do -- this is the discussion/definition phase.  The draft Memorandum of 
Association on the web page lists the proposed objectives for a Society 
-- they're open for discussion.

: I'd also like to know a few things about ISOC-AU's political leanings.
: The most pressing issue the net in Australia has to deal with right now
: is regulation. Where would ISOC-AU stand on censorship, privacy, freedom
: of speech, anonymity, cryptography and so on? 

Wherever the members want it to stand. 
 
 Kate Lance