<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1976178456;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1139792642 -1685413440 67567619 67567621 67567617 67567619 67567621 67567617 67567619 67567621;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=DE link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hello all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>(forgot to copy to chapter delegates when send on Friday)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>When receiving the email from Eric and later from Ted about the revised version of the proposed bylaws changes I had big hopes for substantial progress.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I am sure that much effort went into the update so far and when talking to Eric and Ted face to face (and everybody else involved) I got the impression of a lot of understanding and acceptance of the proposals made earlier this year from members, chapters and org-members.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>When reading the revised proposal much of the anticipation and hope dissolved away into nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Yes - there was substantial change in some details – <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Chapters are for example now clearly recognized -<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>But the main line and direction is still the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>If you look simply at the text there is a severe imbalance<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>7 pages about the board of trustees<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>2 pages about org members<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>1/2 page about chapters<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Less than 1/2 page about individual members<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>6 pages about officers (which could be added to the board part)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Are members and chapters really so much less important than the board and the officers?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Or are the rules for them so much simpler?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Part of it might be due to the fact that most of the rules for chapters and members are pushed to different papers (letter of affiliation) and left to later decisions of staff and board.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>This gives a feeling of uncertainty – you do not know what is coming up on you from the bylaws. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I would expect that orgs, members and chapters should find as much consideration in the bylaws as staff and officers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>It is somehow a feeling of second class or less importance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Again I am not sure if this can be repaired by changing a few words in the bylaws. I am more and more convinced that a deeper change needs to happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I wish this discussion would be a real discussion where chapters, orgs and members would be part on equal level and not only asked for input every 4 months or so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Especially when this input is to a large extend only put into some storage after being read by the people tasked to do the revisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>A few round tables or some discussion would really make the whole process more transparent and more trustworthy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I propose a much more direct and open dialogue inviting and including all parties that make up the Internet Society.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Please include all of us – we want to contribute and share.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I attach my points from May , as most of them are not reflected in the current text or answered by some communication.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Summary of remarks from first letter in May 2012<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Global remarks:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still open: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The discussion about the update of the bylaws has sparked a lot of talk about the overall situation of chapters and members inside Internet Society.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I believe it would be a good idea to start a broader discussion about the role of individual members, chapters and organizational members. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still open: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>There seems to be quite a gap between what some individuals, some chapters and some org-members expect from their role inside Internet Society and what is echoed from staff. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The written as well as the proposed text in the bylaws often describes even another different scenario.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>There is also quite a gap in many areas between what chapters and members expect from staff and what staff (constrained by personal or budget limits) is able to deliver or is allowed to deliver. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still open: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I heard a strong request from several sides to re-think the chosen understanding of being “Cause-based”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>We should have the possibility to discuss different models, where membership, chapters and org-members play a more visible and more influencing role in the creation and supervision of the long-term goals of the Internet Society.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Perhaps slight changes in the current model would be sufficient to improve the overall situation a lot.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>More specific remarks to the proposed bylaws:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still mostly open: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I understand and concur fully with the principle guideline to make bylaws as slim as possible to avoid the high effort and legal cost needed on revision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>At the same time I see the bylaws as something which defines centrally large parts of the board, chapter, member and org-member and staff roles and responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>If central parts of the responsibilities or role descriptions are moved to other documents (example for chapters: Society’s standards of performance), these additional documents should listed explicitly in the bylaws and their content and the change of it bound in the bylaws to a rather high level of control and revision, like a 2/3 majority vote of the board or similar. None of these central definitions should be changeable unilaterally by a simple staff decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still mostly open: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Chapters, members and org-members were praised high as central parts of the Internet Society on several occasions during the Inet in Geneva. Also the central role of the IETF was mentioned over and over.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I would propose to mention those central aspects of the Internet Society also in the first paragraph of the bylaws side by side to the one sentence about the mission.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Chapters:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still open:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Even if the bylaws now recognize chapters as their own entity and the selection of board members is on the same level for IETF, org-members and chapters, there is still some imbalance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The org-members shall have a yearly assembly – why nothing comparable for chapters?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still open:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>As the actions of staff are under final supervision by the board and neither chapters nor members have any channel of direct input to the board, there should be a definition of such a channel in the bylaws. Possibilities are:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-US><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US>an appeal-channel for staff actions or decisions on members or chapters<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-US><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US>the possibility for members, chapters and org-members to request the attention of the board by putting some item on the agenda of the next board meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Mostly closed:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Several chapters have org-members as local members. This conflicts with the proposed text.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Members:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Still mostly open:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The rights and possibilities of members seem to be very limited in the current text.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>As all definitions about membership levels and fees for individual or organizational members have now been removed from the bylaws, I would propose again that these rules should be moved to documents explicitly listed in the bylaws and their content and the change of it bound in the bylaws to a rather high level of control and revision, like a 2/3 majority vote of the board or similar. None of these definitions of membership levels should be changeable by a simple staff decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hans Peter Dittler<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Member of the board<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>ISOC.DE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Internet Society German Chapter e.V.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>