<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>+1 Sivas. I'd earlier commented on voting reminders -- a reminder
was sent on Tuesday the 26th (after Olivier had informed us of the
on-going vote/survey), a week after the ballots are said to have
been sent out and just days before the deadline. Previously,
Chapters would have heard about any vote/survey/call multiple
times via different channels. There are also other relevant
comments regarding this process. </p>
<p>In the actual event, the deadline was not extended, and there
were at least 2 chapters complaining about not having received
their ballots on the day of the deadline itself. Yet, there is
this assumption that of the 101 Chapters with "the right to vote",
that <b>all</b> of them did in fact receive ballots and were in
fact able to exercise that right. <br>
</p>
<p>We should certainly strive to do better next time, <br>
</p>
<p>WYn<br>
PH<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6 Jul 2024 11:40 PM, Sivasubramanian
M via Chapter-delegates wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKsgsGx6ZWsdUkBmWAcAh4fROKUJjGjeG63f65uiB8ETR7VEPg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p dir="ltr">It may also be desirable to verify if the vote
information and link were mailed to the current President/
voting delegates. In other words, is the voter database
up-to-date? Also, are Chapers reached by more than one
communication channel, for instance, by alternate email
addresses / phone / whatsapp in addition to email? </p>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 6 Jul, 2024, 20:37
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates, <<a
href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div> Dear Frédéric,<br>
<br>
thanks for your kind follow-up. Whilst I do not believe we
are engaging in politics, the aim of the transparency was to
see whether all votes were taken into account by the system.<br>
<br>
A fallback scenario would be to just publish the list of
Chapters who have voted without publishing their actual
vote, so Chapter Chairs can check that their Chapter AC
delegate has cast their vote and the vote has been taken
into account. That's quite basic and I do not think will
lead to the horse trading which you allude to in your email.<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 05/07/2024 22:24, Frédéric Taes wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Olivier,
Cheryl and all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you,
Cheryl, for the good organization. It’s a pity that
only about the half of chapters voted, despite
reminders. :-(</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I understand the
request from Olivier about transparency, however I
would find abnormal to disclose who voted on what
(or didn’t) for two reasons:</span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:17.25pt"><span lang="EN-US">It
should have to be communicated beforehand that
content of votes would be made public, and not
after the votes;<br>
the principle should be privacy by default and, if
disclosed, properly communicated beforehand and/or
with consent;<br>
<br>
</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:17.25pt"><span lang="EN-US">What’s
the purpose of this level of transparency? Which
actions would you take if you see that chapter X
didn’t voted, or voted against your proposal?<br>
There’s a risk to misuse the info to make pressure
or to start political alliances; a fictive
example: your UK chapter will vote for my proposal
on topic X (and I’ll check you did!), and in
return my chapter would vote UK proposal on
another topic (even if we disagree), OK? ;-)</span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Additional
remarks:</span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">what
about Special Interest Groups (SIG)? They have no
right to vote, no right to have their voice heard,
only observer’s role. I don’t find this normal.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US">how to
interpret the absence of vote? Is it saying the
topic is not important, like saying no? I’m not
sure. My guess: mailing lists are not effective or
not read, important messages are lost in the mass
or marked as spam,… I would suggest a dedicated
“read-only” channel for votes and important
communications, and discussions in another
channel.</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Frédéric.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">PS to Olivier
and Eduardo: I well voted in name of Belgium
Chapter, and not against any proposal. :-) I love
community spirit (and yes I don’t like politics).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"
lang="EN-US">De : </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Chapter-delegates
<a
href="mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces@elists.isoc.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><chapter-delegates-bounces@elists.isoc.org></a>
au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via
Chapter-delegates <a
href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org></a><br>
<b>Répondre à : </b>Olivier Crepin-Leblond <a
href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><ocl@gih.com></a><br>
<b>Date : </b>vendredi 5 juillet 2024 à 20:16<br>
<b>À : </b>Cheryl Langdon-Orr <a
href="mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><langdonorr@gmail.com></a>,
<a
href="mailto:0F9Dn000000QayiKAC@post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><0F9Dn000000QayiKAC@post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com></a>,
ISOC Chapter Delegates <a
href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org></a><br>
<b>Objet : </b>Re: [Chapter-delegates] The
results of the recent polls regarding two issues
from the Puerto Rico Chapter and the proposed test
for transmission to the BoT.</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Cheryl,<br>
<br>
thank you for forwarding this information and
following up on these polls.<br>
In the interest of transparency would you please
forward the results showing chapters having voted and
their vote? I note that nowhere in the Chapter AC
rules is there any mention of consensus calls needing
to be confidential.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 05/07/2024 00:28, Cheryl
Langdon-Orr via Chapter-delegates wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif">The message you
find attached outlines the procedures and
results of the poll conducted by the Chapters
Advisory Council (ChAC) of the Internet
Society, conducted via Survey Monkey between
June 17th and July 1st, and aimed to gather
support for two proposals from the Puerto Rico
Chapter among the 101 Chapters with voting
rights. The first proposal was to open the
Chapter Delegate email list to all Chapter
Members as observers, while the second was to
reinstate funding for the ISOC LIVE video and
archiving services.<br>
<br>
The results showed that while a majority of
responding Chapters supported both proposals,
the required level of support for approval
required by the ChAC Rules and Procedures for
sending advice to the Board of Trustees still
needs to be reached. Specifically, 66.04%
voted in favour of the first proposal, and for
the second, 88.68% voted in favour. However,
due to the rules requiring a majority of all
eligible Chapters to vote 'yes,' the proposals
still need to pass. <br>
<br>
Despite the ChAC being unable to send “formal
advice” to the Board of Trustees, the ChAC
Steering Committee is taking a proactive step.
We propose sending a “recommendation” to the
BoT regarding the two proposals since their
approval was clear among the poll respondents.<br>
<br>
I've included more details in the attached
PDF. If you need additional information or
access to the specific results and
discussions, we have also included below
reference links to summaries and presentations
available on Box.com.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Cheryl
Langdon-Orr</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif">, </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif">Chair 2024 of
the ChAC -SC</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>