Guest Post: InternetNZ Goes Full Retard

A guest post by Gary Benner:

I received a report on the Strategy 2022-2026 Review for the InternetNZ Board, and noted one paragraph that has me somewhat bemused, befuddled, and a little concerned.

The Board reviewed the success of the prior Strategy 2022-2026, which was named Niho Taniwha, noting significant cultural and organisational transformation has been achieved. The Board acknowledged the courageous values involved in conducting the systemic racism review and the successful transition to our new Strategy 2026-2031, the adoption of Te Korowai o Ipurangi Aotearoa, and our guiding values, Ngā Uara.

There are two Board positions coming up for election shortly, and the report further noted:

“The Board reviewed progress for the 2026 Elections and Annual General Meeting (AGM) noting that nominations for the two board member positions have opened, approved the Returning Officer, discussed the safety of board member candidates and the provisions for voting at the AGM.

I am also intrigued as to the focus on “safety of board member candidates”, something that I wonder why that would be of any concern here in New Zealand. So I did what any red-blooded IT Professional would do, and researched what our fellow nations consider strategic goals for the Internet in their country: “Internet governance at the national level involves a mix of technical coordination (e.g., infrastructure, standards), policy/regulatory frameworks (cybersecurity, data protection, content moderation), economic strategies (digital economy, innovation), and geopolitical aims (sovereignty, influence).” Common elements across a wide range of different governing styles include:

• Emerging Focus: AI governance, data flows, critical infrastructure resilience, and digital public infrastructure (especially India/Brazil).
• Cybersecurity: Universal priority, addressed via regulation (EU), partnerships/offense (US), or isolation/control (Russia/China).
• Regulation Style: EU — comprehensive ex-ante rules. US — lighter-touch with market incentives. China — top-down state directives. Others hybrid.
• Sovereignty vs. Openness: China and Russia prioritize strong state control and potential decoupling. The US and EU emphasize openness with safeguards. India and Brazil seek balanced sovereignty with rights and inclusion.

Meanwhile back in New Zealand (where “back” is the operative term) our Board seem to be caught up using the funding and status of the organisation to undertake a left-wing ideological campaign. For the uninitiated: Te Korowai o Ipurangi Aotearoa is the guiding strategy and vision for InternetNZ that embeds the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into how they operate. It ensures their mahi (work) actively supports digital equity and partnership with Māori across the New Zealand internet ecosystem. Niho Taniwha (teeth of the taniwha) is a traditional Māori pattern—often seen in tukutuku panels—that serves as the visual framework for their strategic plan and reporting. It symbolizes strength, connection, lineage, and intergenerational learning, grounding InternetNZ’s goals in Māori culture and community impact. Are we seeing a pattern here? We need to see elected on to this Board two more people with a technology focus, without the trappings of the cultural mind virus.