<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
I share the concerns of the colleagues already (veni, Peter and the
others)<br>
expressed on the list. An association is usually association of
members and they have<br>
the major role in the organization life. All other bodies are set up
for the members to channel<br>
their views, projects and work. This must be reflected in the
Bylaws. So far it seems that<br>
the all other parts of the organization are more important than the
membership.<br>
<br>
With regards,<br>
<br>
borka<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dne 15.9.2012 9:06, piše Bernie Hoeneisen:
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.00.1209150858460.22865@softronics.hoeneisen.ch"
type="cite">I share Hans-Peter's concerns (see below) and fully
support his proposals for changes.
<br>
<br>
cheers,
<br>
Bernie (Board Member of ISOC Switzerland Chapter)
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ucom.ch/">http://ucom.ch/</a>
<br>
Tech Consulting for Internet Technology
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Hans Peter Dittler wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Hello all,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(forgot to copy to chapter delegates when send on Friday)
<br>
<br>
When receiving the email from Eric and later from Ted about the
revised version of the proposed bylaws
<br>
changes I had big hopes for substantial progress.
<br>
<br>
I am sure that much effort went into the update so far and when
talking to Eric and Ted face to face (and
<br>
everybody else involved) I got the impression of a lot of
understanding and acceptance of the proposals made
<br>
earlier this year from members, chapters and org-members.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
When reading the revised proposal much of the anticipation and
hope dissolved away into nothing.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes - there was substantial change in some details –
<br>
<br>
Chapters are for example now clearly recognized -
<br>
<br>
But the main line and direction is still the same.
<br>
<br>
If you look simply at the text there is a severe imbalance
<br>
<br>
7 pages about the board of trustees
<br>
<br>
2 pages about org members
<br>
<br>
1/2 page about chapters
<br>
<br>
Less than 1/2 page about individual members
<br>
<br>
6 pages about officers (which could be added to the board part)
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Are members and chapters really so much less important than the
board and the officers?
<br>
<br>
Or are the rules for them so much simpler?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Part of it might be due to the fact that most of the rules for
chapters and members are pushed to different
<br>
papers (letter of affiliation) and left to later decisions of
staff and board.
<br>
<br>
This gives a feeling of uncertainty – you do not know what is
coming up on you from the bylaws.
<br>
<br>
I would expect that orgs, members and chapters should find as
much consideration in the bylaws as staff and
<br>
officers.
<br>
<br>
It is somehow a feeling of second class or less importance.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Again I am not sure if this can be repaired by changing a few
words in the bylaws. I am more and more
<br>
convinced that a deeper change needs to happen.
<br>
<br>
I wish this discussion would be a real discussion where
chapters, orgs and members would be part on equal
<br>
level and not only asked for input every 4 months or so.
<br>
<br>
Especially when this input is to a large extend only put into
some storage after being read by the people
<br>
tasked to do the revisions.
<br>
<br>
A few round tables or some discussion would really make the
whole process more transparent and more
<br>
trustworthy.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I propose a much more direct and open dialogue inviting and
including all parties that make up the Internet
<br>
Society.
<br>
<br>
Please include all of us – we want to contribute and share.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I attach my points from May , as most of them are not reflected
in the current text or answered by some
<br>
communication.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Summary of remarks from first letter in May 2012
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Global remarks:
<br>
<br>
Still open:
<br>
<br>
The discussion about the update of the bylaws has sparked a lot
of talk about the overall situation of
<br>
chapters and members inside Internet Society.
<br>
<br>
I believe it would be a good idea to start a broader discussion
about the role of individual members,
<br>
chapters and organizational members.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Still open:
<br>
<br>
There seems to be quite a gap between what some individuals,
some chapters and some org-members expect from
<br>
their role inside Internet Society and what is echoed from
staff.
<br>
<br>
The written as well as the proposed text in the bylaws often
describes even another different scenario.
<br>
<br>
There is also quite a gap in many areas between what chapters
and members expect from staff and what staff
<br>
(constrained by personal or budget limits) is able to deliver or
is allowed to deliver.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Still open:
<br>
<br>
I heard a strong request from several sides to re-think the
chosen understanding of being “Cause-based”.
<br>
<br>
We should have the possibility to discuss different models,
where membership, chapters and org-members play
<br>
a more visible and more influencing role in the creation and
supervision of the long-term goals of the
<br>
Internet Society.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps slight changes in the current model would be sufficient
to improve the overall situation a lot.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
More specific remarks to the proposed bylaws:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Still mostly open:
<br>
<br>
I understand and concur fully with the principle guideline to
make bylaws as slim as possible to avoid the
<br>
high effort and legal cost needed on revision.
<br>
<br>
At the same time I see the bylaws as something which defines
centrally large parts of the board, chapter,
<br>
member and org-member and staff roles and responsibilities.
<br>
<br>
If central parts of the responsibilities or role descriptions
are moved to other documents (example for
<br>
chapters: Society’s standards of performance), these additional
documents should listed explicitly in the
<br>
bylaws and their content and the change of it bound in the
bylaws to a rather high level of control and
<br>
revision, like a 2/3 majority vote of the board or similar. None
of these central definitions should be
<br>
changeable unilaterally by a simple staff decision.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Still mostly open:
<br>
<br>
Chapters, members and org-members were praised high as central
parts of the Internet Society on several
<br>
occasions during the Inet in Geneva. Also the central role of
the IETF was mentioned over and over.
<br>
<br>
I would propose to mention those central aspects of the Internet
Society also in the first paragraph of the
<br>
bylaws side by side to the one sentence about the mission.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chapters:
<br>
<br>
Still open:
<br>
<br>
Even if the bylaws now recognize chapters as their own entity
and the selection of board members is on the
<br>
same level for IETF, org-members and chapters, there is still
some imbalance.
<br>
<br>
The org-members shall have a yearly assembly – why nothing
comparable for chapters?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Still open:
<br>
<br>
As the actions of staff are under final supervision by the board
and neither chapters nor members have any
<br>
channel of direct input to the board, there should be a
definition of such a channel in the bylaws.
<br>
Possibilities are:
<br>
<br>
- an appeal-channel for staff actions or decisions on
members or chapters
<br>
<br>
- the possibility for members, chapters and org-members
to request the attention of the board by
<br>
putting some item on the agenda of the next board meeting
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Mostly closed:
<br>
<br>
Several chapters have org-members as local members. This
conflicts with the proposed text.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Members:
<br>
<br>
Still mostly open:
<br>
<br>
The rights and possibilities of members seem to be very limited
in the current text.
<br>
<br>
As all definitions about membership levels and fees for
individual or organizational members have now been
<br>
removed from the bylaws, I would propose again that these rules
should be moved to documents explicitly
<br>
listed in the bylaws and their content and the change of it
bound in the bylaws to a rather high level of
<br>
control and revision, like a 2/3 majority vote of the board or
similar. None of these definitions of
<br>
membership levels should be changeable by a simple staff
decision.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hans Peter Dittler
<br>
<br>
Member of the board
<br>
<br>
ISOC.DE
<br>
<br>
Internet Society German Chapter e.V.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://portal.isoc.org">https://portal.isoc.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>