[AusNOG] Legal Challenge To Meta Data Laws

[Ross Wheeler]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Paul Brooks wrote:

> You had one. It used to do stuff on your behalf. You let it die through lack of
> support and funding.

> The one that is left most active  - CommsAlliance - many people on this list won't
> have anything to do with.

> On the not-for-profit volunteer end, Internet Australia (my hat) has been putting in a
> huge amount of effort on your behalf, but the more we do, the more it is criticised,
> and you (the ISPs) haven't exactly been breaking down the doors to support the effort
> through paid memberships and participation.

Paul, while what you say has an element of truth to it, there are other 
parts to the whole story that are also relevant.

Some of us have (in the past) contributed to various "industry 
representative" groups. Not all however have provided the representation 
that we'd anticipated.

Of those that remain, several don't even publish what their fees are - and 
I know I, for one, am reluctant to go through the application process 
without even an indication of the financial burden we're taking on.

Larger, wealthier entities may consider $100K or more a drop in the ocean 
for some "credible representation". Others at the other end of the food 
chain (I'm looking here at many of the smaller providers, frequently run 
by one person, taking home less than "minimum wages") simply cannot 
justify even $500-$1000 yearly fees.

When you then consider the way smaller providers have (in general) been 
treated - oh, sure, there's a "vote" but it's rigged (voting linked to 
users or fees paid or whatever); how many of these bodies have nore 
ambulance-chasers than actual INDUSTRY PLAYERS; the CEO/board being paid a 
fortune to live the high life - it kinds just p!sses us off.

Value for money? I wonder how many more small providers (particularly) 
might find some cash to kick in if they perceived some value or benefit 
from membership.

I'm sure there are people (like you) who are passionate about what you do, 
and who do it well... but if that's not communicated to those who need to 
know, well it's not OUR fault your work isn't recognised. Similarly, if 
others within your orgnisation (by word or deed) undo all your hard work 
by being jerks, then it's not a surprise that people are reluctant to 
support the entity.

I will give John Stanton a public pat on the back here - earlier this year 
there was some fairly passionate discussion which included some less than 
supportive comments about Comms Alliance. John offered some free 
memberships so small providers could experience what CA actually DOES, and 
make an informed decision (rather than guessing from hearsay, other 
peoples experiences, etc). I must admit, I still have no idea what a CA 
membership actually costs, because the part of their website that tells 
you that says basically "POA".


> Get off your collective asses and either do it personally, or pay someone $$$$$ to do
> it for you. Preferrably both.

Some of us have. And put our (individual) asses on the line for the sake 
of the industry... and some of us learned that really, the industry is 
composed of (with few exceptions) a bunch of people doing their own thing, 
keeping their heads down (stick your head up and get it shot off) and 
keeping quiet. Forums like this people express views, opinions etc that 
most wouldn't do in a more public place (although public archives probably 
moderate a lot of discussion).

My views are probably not representative of many in the industry, but I 
know they're representative of a lot of (old, small) providers.

R.