<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi. <br>
<br>
The LoA model is not wrong. To call it wrong, means there's hope to
fix it. <br>
There's no model to "fit" all chapters, from all cultures. Recently,
for example, in Russia, there's a law, that if you are getting money
from abroad (ISOC grants!), then you must register as a "foreign
agent". The word "agent" in Russian has a very negative meaning -
i.e. spy. Now, who - in their common sense - sign such a LoA? <br>
I am not even talking about the case Norbert was describing, and the
cases of dozens of other places. <br>
Hey, I am not sure that in Bulgaria that won't be considered bad at
some point; after all the prime minister was named a mobster in a
publication at the Congressional Quarterly;) <br>
<br>
As for my saying that ISOC needs the chapters more - they are the
ones that bring legitimacy to ISOC; the other way around doesn't
work exactly the same. <br>
<br>
I could understand that there may be some request to move forward
the LoA, but today, when we are trying to focus all our energy and
efforts to fight the Saurons of the new, alternative Internet,
that's just waste of our (and yours) time. We don't need formal
document to partner.<b> ISOC didn't need formal documents from the
chapters 10 years ago, when we were collecting letters from
governments and academia in support of the ISOC/Afilias bid for
the .org registry, so why suddenly the need?</b> And why now? And
- at the end - what MORE will it give to the chapters AND to ISOC,
which doesn't exist today? From the previous discussion - nothing,
in fact it will remove more, and provide little. <br>
<br>
So, please, let us focus on the important issues. <br>
<br>
v.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/20/2012 16:06, Ted Mooney wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:FB8430D2-0F35-4760-A1D0-7301BE57CF94@isoc.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
An interesting observation, Veni. I certainly have no choice than
to await the resolution of the By-laws issues before proceeding
with a Letter of Affiliation. And perhaps while the issue of the
LoA was in hiatus due to the clearly more important by-laws
discussion, Chapter leaders may have assumed that it is dead. Nor
is the LoA necessarily the only venue of developing and working
with the communities that support our shared values. What is
important, I think, is the common and documented understanding of
how the parties come together for the communal purpose. For some
that should be a Letter of Affiliation, for others it may be
something else such as an exchange of emails.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I continue to hear you say that The Internet Society needs
Chapters more than Chapters need the Internet Society. Perhaps
that is true. Perhaps not. I do know that we need and rely on
each other. If you were never a member of ISOC you would still
be able to follow, use and discuss the excellent work of our
Public Policy team, our Trust and Identity team, our Standards
and Technology team, and not think twice about it. You may not
need the toolkits we develop to assist chapters with outreach in
their communities, to train members how work with volunteers, to
provide video learning events on open Internet Standards, but
there are others who do. And we will continue to improve our
support to them. For others who are self contained and
self-sufficient, I would suggest that we develop a relationship
model that builds on that, rather than think of the other as
renegade or ungrateful. I want a partnership with the Bulgarian
Chapter and the DC Chapter. If the LoA is the wrong model, I
hope there is another one and offer to work with you to find it.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>