Slashdot Mirror
ISOC Hires MPAA Executive Paul Beringer
First time accepted submitter imwilder writes "The Internet Society has hired Paul Beringer to head up its operations in North America. Beringer was formerly Chief Technology Policy Officer for the MPAA, and Executive Director of Internet and Technology Policy for Verizon Corporate Services. Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'"
Where "independent" and "objective" simply means "giving the bad as much airtime and consideration as the good."
Group Of People That Dont Matter sounds better. their description sounds like a secret society.
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
... we now have a case of the fox and a platoon of his buddies guarding the henhouse?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
:-|
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
He was only at the MPAA for a year, and from what I hear, that was no accident. I know people who know him, and they say that he understands the Internet and didn't agree with what the MPAA was doing, and was described to me as "one of the good guys." We shall see, but he won't last long at ISOC if he isn't.
Not Beringer, Brigner.
Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'
Why would you think it does? Anyone who's qualified for any sort of leadership position is going to have past experience with some company or group. When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.
You'd still be a better choice than this MPAA shill.
Awesome. Michael Bay will literally own you.
n/t
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It is a hell of a gamble to hire such highly questionable person for this job. Their arguments have to be really very good to do this. I personally do not trust anyone hired or anything owned by one of the **AA's.
How does one go about boycotting this?
There's a 'how to' video on boycotting this, but it's not available online. You have to provide two forms of picture ID to order the physical media, register your IP address, sit hrough an FBI warning and promise that only you - and you alone - will watch it. Sharing it with others, making copies, posting it online or selling it as used is strictly forbidden. A 'how to ' video about acquiring their videos is being prepared by their lawyers in conjunction with the US government and Interpol.
Anybody who has seen both Sean Doran's brilliant screed "It Seeks Overall Control" and watched the IAHC committee where ISOC made the deal with the devil for control of the DNS which it then presented to the USG as the final solution, can not be surprised at this.
After the US government threatened to make Jon Postel "go away" for his ideas about expanding the DNS to make NSI "one of many" registires (instead of the current plan to have 10,000 sales agents for .com) per the original NSF cooperative agreement with NSI/General Atomics/ATT, the USG (really Commerce) made their own version of IANA run by intellectual property lawyers, starting at the top with WIPO from Geneva being involved in the earliest secret (!) meetings about the DNS delivered on a platter by ISOC; this was initiated when Don Heath (ISOC) ran into Albert Tramposch (WIPO) and Bob Shaw (ITU) at an OECD workshop in Ottawa at about the time Jon was trying to expand the DNS namespace around the time the Vint Cerf's FNCAC advised the NSF to instruct NSI to began charging for domains.
ISOC, and really any of these organizations that start with an "I" are really a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" old boys club - look at their salaries on their organizations tax forms, they're 2 to 5 times for equivalent government work and lets face it if you saw FCC staffers in kayaks at a five star hotel Costa Rica claiming it was "bottom up multistakeholder consensus making" - one of four junkets a year - heads would roll and never mind the FCC has stated the multistakeholder model is rubbish.
But how else can they let the intellectual property crowd and speculators have as much as a say as all those people that actually own and operate nameservers?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'
Is what now?
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Brigner is in favor of SOPA/PIPA and screwing with DNS.
http://www.shinkuro.com/PROTECT%20IP%20Technical%20Whitepaper%20Final.pdf
http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/author/Paul-Brigner.aspx
So, yeah.
That is disappointing. Thanks for these links. Remember though that people often have to represent the viewpoints of the organizations that they work for. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things evolve.
Remember though that people often have to represent the viewpoints of the organizations that they work for.
That may be the case for representative positions like spokesperson or similar, but as "Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Policy Officer at MPAA"? Isn't that a position which defines these viewpoints and policies?
Insightful. I was wondering if you would point that out.
I do not know how the MPAA operates, but I would expect that a policy group would be an advisory group that provides analysis and options to the board or executive leadership, but that final policy choices would be made by the leadership and board, and that it would be up to the policy group to draft appropriate language to reflect those policy choices. But again, I don't have any insight at all into how the MPAA operates.
Ultimately, the people who set an organization's policies are (or should be) the board and executive leadership team.
I think we're going to know more after the dust has settled.
Apparently there's also a lively discussion on one of ISOC's mailing-list: https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2012-March/009569.html