From: CWHITCOMB@lnmta.bentley.edu
To: cpsr-activist@cpsr.org
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:08:27 -0500
Subject: Let's talk about direction


====================
Impressions from the Annual Meeting
The full title of our annual  meeting this year was One Planet, One Net:
The Public Interest in Internet Governance.  It was a great title - and it
served to churn up many, many important and relevent issues that easily fit
within its definition.  Saturday's program was a smorgasbord of expertise
from those working directly on governance issues and Sunday gave the
members an opportunity to express yet more issues they'd like to see the
organization pursue.  By the end of the weekend it became clear to me that
there are simply more aspects of Internet Governance than any one
organization can adequately address.  It also became clear that the
"public's interest" is a lot more complicated that any one-two day
conference can define.  So though I think we put on a great show - we
attracted fantastic people to the program and we polished our conference
organizing skill set,  - we didn't wind up with much clear program
direction for the organization.

Time to Reinvent Ourselves
CPSR started life 18 years ago as the only show in town when it came to
technology and society related issues.  It expanded its focus from Star
Wars to Privacy & Civil Liberties to keep up with the times and to stay
relevent.  As time passed, we added many interest areas as they appeared on
the horizon.  Meanwhile other groups have developed who advocate for single
issues, pay staff to do the work, and do a really fantastic job.  It makes
no sense to for us to take on something someone else is already doing well,
and with a volunteer driven organization, it is difficult to sustain an
effective presence in multiple areas.

It is time for CPSR to look at the field of Internet advocacy as a whole
and figure out what organizational structure is needed that can represent
the public interest and deliver a coherent and effective message to
policymakers. I believe it is time for us to inventory our resources,
examine our current structure, and make real changes so that we can play a
relevant and useful role once again.

A Plan
I would like to CPSR to stop agonizing over the enormous list of potential
issues we could put front and center and focus on becoming an organization
that provides a coherent source of the public interest voice for
policymakers and the public.  I'd like us to become known as
1)  the group that can demystify the technological reality in political
issues so industry is not the only version the public gets on what can and
can't happen.
2)  The organization that provides an outlet for public discussion of
Internet issues coupled with solid computer professional expertise.
3) Not only a source (web site & policy papers) of information, but a super
collection of pointers to the wonderful work of like-minded organizations.

 I'd like to see all program activity leave the domain of the Board of
Directors and rest entirely on the shoulders of the members.

The Participants
It was abundantly clear at the conference that there are many among us who
want to discuss these issues and, I'll bet, many who would become involved
in advocacy projects given the proper venue and support.  We are blessed
with a membership full of expertise and articulate writers and we've picked
up a fair amount of advocacy skills along the way.  We have also become
great event organizers.

The Structure
We have three realms within which our membership acts - chapters, working
groups, discussion lists.  Chapters are as old as CPSR and mired in bylaw
complication and often more burden than benefit to the organization.
Working groups are a fairly new format with very few rules, regulations, or
expectations - but currently enjoy very little authority to act on behalf
of the organization. Discussion lists; cpsr-activists, one-net, etc., host
sporadic traffic from which most of our positions develop due to the
efforts of individual volunteers.  This puts a lot of pressure on a few and
seldom rewards their efforts adequately.

I propose we place the responsiblity for CPSR program squarely onto the
shoulders of the working groups.  In a field such as ours, we need to move
nimbly from one topic to the next. Working groups can activate and
de-activate as needed.  With some discussion, I'm sure we can develop a
system that sanctions the output of these groups in such away that they
ultimately speak for the organization.

Chapters can serve as a structure that brings geographical unity to our
membership and become activated when events or issues come to town.  They
can provide organizational structure for our international members.  To
become appropriately useful at this point, our bylaws will need a dramatic
overhaul to allow for international chapters and to unravel complicated and
unneccessary administrivia.

We are currently trying to reinvent the cpsr-activist list, made up of a
select group of members, to an all-member, self-subscribing discussion
list.   It is from here that working groups would develop.

This is meant as a discussion starter, nothing more.  We have momentum from
the conference and the press coverage, but that will all disappear if we
can't clearly and succinctly define why it's a good thing to have CPSR
around.  I'd like to challenge the list to come up with a 3-4 sentence
description of what CPSR does and how.

Coralee