<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Everybody,<br>
<br>
after having been cut off technically since yesterday for one day
(local problems), I am responding to some mails which came in in the
meantime – as my final contribution to the list before the webinar
in about 3 hours. Of course the webinar will be an opportunity to
talk things over – but, as has been said in so many postings on the
Chapter-Delegates list, there are quite a number of fundamental
issues which need clarification of a nature more serious than can be
dealt with in a series of different webinars, where there will be
different participants every time. <br>
<br>
As the mail from Christian de Larrinaga – down here – says, there
are problems which need to be clarified with all concerned, before
it is possible to respond to some details:<br>
<i><br>
= = =<br>
I am clear that before the local board can seriously engage with
this issue it would be important to know how ISOC views the status
of its own members. <br>
<br>
What is an ISOC global member?<br>
<br>
- in relation to a chapter that member signed up for through the
ISOC site<br>
- in relation to ISOC (voting rights etc)<br>
- in relation to chapter members who signed up directly at the
local internet society organisation service.<br>
= = =<br>
Some clarity over the intended status of members of ISOC is
absolutely crucial to how chapters need to respond. I think this
is a matter for the Trustees and if Staff are engaged... <br>
= = =</i><br>
<br>
I appreciate also that Anne Lord joined now the debate, helping us
all to understand some of the pre-history of where we find ourselves
now all of sudden.<br>
<br>
But I say consciously “all of a sudden” because this history had
been broken off a long time ago - and as Christopher Wilkinson
reminded us recently, there had been quite some efforts not to let
this history break: <br>
<i><br>
= = =<br>
1. When the staff receive substantive input from Chapters and
members (e.g. the London November 2010 Chapter workshop), then an
alternative proposal should be sent for consultation within three
or four weeks. The LoA episode, with more than a year's silence
from the staff, is not acceptable.<br>
<br>
2. Most of your interlocutors are elected delegates from their
Chapters or other entities (e.g. ISOC-ECC). Accordingly this is
really inappropriate:<br>
<br>
> requested not to forward it further until we have heard and
incorporated your feedback.<br>
<br>
Whether delegates consult their authorities or their members is
their decision. Not a question for the staff.<br>
<br>
3. When the staff state that an issue has been <<approved by
ISOC>>, this should be associated, in advance, with a
schedule for the relevant decision by the Board of Trustees, with
opportunity for Chapters and members to provide timely input.
Clearly, on matters of institutional and political significance, a
simple e-mail from a staff member does not constitute "approval"
by ISOC.<br>
= = =</i><br>
<br>
I did not see that Christopher and ISOC-ECC got any response on this
list. <br>
<br>
And I do not list up here the various efforts I made on this list to
get responses.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks, Anne, for sharing information on the following plans:<br>
<i><br>
> The webinars are being rolled out twice a week for as long as
it takes. There is no "rush", and I apologise if it seems this
way. If you cant make this weeks webinar, we will invite you to
another.</i><br>
<br>
Until now, I had not been aware at all that you intend these
webinars with varying participants to continue twice a week into
some future. I really had the impression that there was a rush, with
a quick sequence of changes between two-slot and three-slot and
two-slot Doodle options, just for this one week.<br>
<i><br>
Regardless of process, with such enormous diversity across the
Chapters and particular situations, I fully anticipate that there
will be a small number who will not be entirely in agreement with
the details. What we are seeking is a balance across the diversity
of opinions, noting that it will be impossible to satisfy
everyone. <br>
</i><br>
This makes me again state that I obviously misunderstood the
intention of having a LoA officially rolled out which would include
provisions to discontinue the status of a Chapter as affiliated
(without an appeal process). If this is really the intention, we
would need a text which goes beyond providing a balance of diverse
opinions, but something we can trust in situations of crisis and
conflict.<br>
<br>
As Prof. ANG Peng Hwa's comment also shows, he – like myself and
many others – did not understand some important goals in the way
they showed up on the Chapter list:<br>
<i><br>
>> I appreciate that you have a rather heavy email traffic
volume but a paragraph or two in explanatory text, even in
seemingly redundant communication (we need redundant communication
to communicate) will be helpful. And, as in this case, could
eventually save you more work.<br>
</i><br>
<br>
And as John Moore remarked:<br>
<i><br>
<br>
>> I think the Affiliation Agreement is an extremely
important document. It goals are laudable -- to strengthen the
Internet Society and the Chapters by creating accountability.
However, I don't think that Chapters have been brought into the
process (at least from what I have been able to see). Further, as
I remember the Bylaws of the Society needed revisions to go along
with the Affiliation Agreement. It does not appear that these
revisions have been made.<br>
>> <br>
>> I had provided comments on an earlier version of the
Affiliation Agreement about a year ago. Then I heard nothing
more In a quick review of this document I find that it still
contains major flaws. I do not see how Chapters can be asked to
sign on without having had a chance for the Chapter governing
bodies to have some input.<br>
>> <br>
>> I will make only a couple of major points, some of which
I made before.<br>
>> <br>
>> There is no mechanism for resolving a dispute...<br>
<br>
>> As it stands, I would have to recommend to our Chapter's
governing board that it not sign the Agreement as written.<br>
</i><br>
I collected these random point to explain again why I had written<br>
<br>
>> I have now signed in to be available at one of the two
Doodle time slots – but I did so with some reluctance.<br>
<br>
I had elaborated on the reasons with specific points, some of which
do not fit into a series of webinars where twice a week for quit
some time different people will raise some points – while we do not
have a common platform to clarify the basis on which we supposedly
stand together.<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert <br>
ISOC Cambodia Chapter<br>
</body>
</html>