Thus, as my vision for the next three years, I would like to see myself and ISOC contribute efforts to facilitate these movements. In detail, I would devote myself into and see ISOC working on:
1. More outreach to developing countries and emerging economics to include them in the global Internet development;
2. Build communication mechanism to facilitate communication between local chapters and members, a cost effective communication channel to accommodate members who have a tight budget is essential;
3. Provide an users’ experiences focus to the technical community while they develop and refine technical standards;
4. Build on its local chapters, ISOC can work well with local members, users and government agencies to encourage the participation in ISOC’s processes, and while respect local culture and regulations, promote the importance of the free flow of information.

Open source software contributed considerably in the development of computer software. Internet as the major means of distributing and sharing open source software deserve more attention. ISOC should one: encourage and support the development of open source software; two: support nations fight against activities that violate intellectual property rights such as illegal software distribution and piracy.

If I had to be more specific I would say that in general terms I would if elected to the board have three guiding principals:
[1] My intention would be to narrow in on a few specific high priority projects where there is a clear consensus amongst those I represent and aim to deliver some specific progress on them during my tenure.
[2] As a representative of chapter members I have a responsibility to them. Nevertheless as a member of the board I have a fiduciary responsibility to ISOC as a whole. As such the agenda of chapters needs to be pursued within the overall context of ISOC and clearly aligning the interests of such a diverse membership is in itself an ongoing challenge.
[3] I do have a bias towards the interests of emerging Internet markets. Not just African ones but all those economies where for either regulatory, economic or political reasons the Internet is still less developed than in G8 economies. The future of developing economies lies not in poverty reduction as much as in wealth creation. Business creates jobs, jobs create wealth and wealth improves the lives of everyone in society. The mobile phone has had an unprecedented impact in stimulating economic activity in emerging economies. I believe passionately that the Internet could achieve even more if the basic building blocks can be put in place.

I don’t know too much about IETF, I have involved myself a little bit on explaining issues in developping countries that would affect standards implementation. IETF seems to make a tremendous job in the technical area, so let’s not fix it. However there are some issues as Spencer is pointing out where ISOC should work with IETF to ensure that the standards are free to implement (free as in freedom not in free beer).

On the political side, the governments of the world have started to reclaim their authority over the Internet (an issue affecting all of their citizens). The WSIS and the new Internet Governance Forum is such example. In a previous post, I highlighted the top down approach of the WSIS, which brought back the emergence of a bottom up approach. Let’s work on this problem at the local level, then national, then regional, then internationally.

Where does ISOC fit on these two streams?

ISOC and especially, its board must listen and feel what these two constituencies want to do. Chapters and individuals are working at the local level to ensure “Internet for Everyone�. ISOC must provide support, expertise and experience to the chapters. The IETF is working on the new
Internet generation and how it is rolled out. Same here, ISOC must provide support, expertise and experience to the IETF. It must listen to people and find consensus. It must must get these two communities to mix and match. The IETF journal is one example of something good happening, the ISOC ambassadors is another example of getting the information flowing between communities. INET was a forum to exchange ideas, we do not need a conference, but we need mechanisms to talk to each others, and ISOC should facilitate that.

In summary, I would like to see ISOC much more closer to its base, supporting initiatives and reforms coming from its various constituencies (and stakeholders) and making people meet people

This can only be achieved as a group, where I will do my utmost to help.

In three years, I hope that IETF has revamped its standards process, and that we have achieved significant improvements in standards quality and “work in progress” intervals for Internet standards.

In three years, I hope that ISOC has provided guidance to IETF on balancing current-operator requirements and architectural direction – this balance doesn’t exist today, and the lack of balance shows when we discuss “net neutrality”, or even IPv6 multihoming.

In three years, I hope that ISOC has spoken, or encouraged others to speak, on technical trends that are shattering our Internet (for example, NATs, firewalls, and Session Border Controllers) and making it difficult to deploy new applications.

In three years, I hope that ISOC has spoken, or encouraged others to speak, on political trends that are shattering our Internet (content filtering, etc.).

In three years, I hope that we have made substantial progress on integrating China and India into the Internet community (not just the Internet Protocol community).

If half of these things have actually happened (especially if it’s the correct half), I’ll be thrilled, but I’d like to work toward making all of them happen.