🚀 go-pugleaf

clance@interconnect.com.au (Kate Lance) writes:

[quoting Geoff Huston]

>  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.

EFA already seems to represent me in all the respects where I feel a
need to be represented as an Internet participant. I do think there's
room for ISOC-AU as an administrative body, but I'd still want to see
formal relationships established between it and the aforementioned
representative bodies before I'd support it.

My reasoning is simply that the same ground should not be covered by
multiple national bodies, or else political frictions will render the
smaller bodies toothless, leaving us with representation by a fat,
conflicted and useless lump of an organisation like the ACS. I'd much
rather see a number of smaller, more flexible and better defined
organisations, groups something along the lines of the emminently
successful AUUG.

Imho ISOC-AU, by asserting its domain as the Australian Internet and all
who sail in her, is in grave danger of coming to resemble the former
rather than the latter organisation. I don't believe this must
necessarily be the case, but, if it's to be avoided, careful definition
of roles and relationships is essential. And by this I don't mean a
great chunk of legal gobbledygook like the memorandum and articles of
association on the ISOC-AU web page :-)

But I understand, of course, that this is infant days for ISOC-AU, and
I'll refrain from critical comment of it until details of its real
purpose and function emerge.

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au       |                Accept Everything              |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |                Reject Nothing                 |