[chapter-delegates] Results of the board discussion on membership (redux)

[Carlos Vera Q]

I agree with Irwan. Trying to concrete:

1. One Member One Vote

2. Every member has a Vote

3. No privilegies in Votes for Money

As some members state, there would be several ID mechanism

Carlos Vera Quintana

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Irwan Effendi" <hero_tsai at mainsyscon.net>
To: "James M Galvin" <galvin at elistx.com>
Cc: <chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] Results of the board discussion on 
membership (redux)


> Dear James,
>
> I would like to re-submit my idea regarding membership clarification, as
> well to re-clarify all discussion on the list. I will do this point per
> point basis to minimize misunderstanding, therefore please respond point 
> per
> point too.
>
> Clarification section:
> Do Board and Staff understand that:
>
> 1. Chapters do not reject the program because of the money, but because 
> the
> program will violate the rights of those who either:
> - can not afford to pay USD 75 per year
> - does not have a credit card
> - have a national credit card which can not be used in internet 
> transaction
>
> 2. Chapters sincerely want to know which one is the genuine intention of 
> the
> Board :
> - to enable all individual members to vote, yet currently does not have 
> any
> better solutions on validation rather than credit card
> Or
> - to ensure that the Board and the Staff are not being ordered around by
> people who cannot afford to pay the costs of their requests, thus giving
> votes only to people who can afford it, and only from countries that has
> close financial and trade link with U.S. (their credit cards accepted in
> U.S.)
>
> 3. Chapters want to know how the new system will handle massive vote
> purchase, which can easily be done if any one of the organization member
> feels the need to hold one more trustee chair. This is very likely to
> happens and will have serious impact on the trusworthiness of the Board in
> the eye of Chapters
>
> 4. Chapters want to know why it was necessary to downgrade their status 
> from
> global member to associate member, while even in the minutes of the 
> meeting
> of the BOT, there is no such recommendation. The recommendation, as it
> states, is to develop a new professional level membership, not to 
> downgrade
> existing one. So far Staff has only submit apologies regarding this, yet 
> no
> explanation about why there was such necessity.
>
> 5. Chapters requests that HQ will open its accounting book. It is a widely
> known fact that ISOC has utilized the existence of chapters and support 
> from
> chapters when bidding for the public internet registry from ICANN. 
> Chapters
> feels that by the virtue of cause and effect, chapters are entitled to 
> know
> how much money are coming in and how much are being used and for what
> purpose. As to the management of this money, of course, Board has the 
> right
> as stated in the bylaws. Chapters only wants to see the report.
>
> 6. In your previous statement and I quote:
> "Certainly we all want the
> Individual and Chapter Programs to be a "good thing" for as many people
> as possible, but they also have to be a "good thing" for all of ISOC.
> ISOC is more than the sum of its Chapters and Individual members"
>
> ISOC consists of:
> Board
> Staff
> Organization members
> Chapters
> Individual members
>
> Since Staff works based on Board instruction, and Board is actually part 
> of
> either Organization members or Chapters, the above statement will 
> translate
> as follows:
>
> Certainly..... but they have to be a "good thing" for Organization 
> members,
> too.
>
> There were several emails on this list assuming similar to the above.
> Chapters want to know whether the translated statement is the truth.
>
>
> 7. Chapters believe that HQ has not been following its own commitments. 
> The
> openness of the standards, transparency, especially the "internet for
> everyone" part. Chapters want to know whether HQ still willing to work 
> side
> by side with them or does HQ has its own agenda which HQ does not want
> chapters to be aware of. As this is the summarizing point, this is the BIG
> QUESTION and honesty and sincerity is absolutely required to helps clear 
> out
> misunderstandings.
>
>
> The suggestion part:
>
> As I have sent this previously, maybe HQ has missed it. I am resubmitting
> idea about membership verification from Indonesia, and this will be point 
> by
> point to, and I wish that Board or Staff can answer point by point, which
> one can be done and which one cannot be done. And if a point cannot be 
> done,
> please also explains why.
> For the background information, this is not a new build-it-from-scratch
> system. In Indonesia, I also reside as officer of public bureau for an
> association of alternative healing foundation, which currently has 12
> organizations and over 78.000 members in 16 islands in Indonesia, and this
> was the system I develop for that association, which I adjusted for
> Indonesian chapter, changing snail mail with e-mail and application letter
> with online application form. For this discussion purpose, I already
> adjusted the system to suit HQ.
>
> 1. Registered Members
> Anyone who has email and register their email and their name at our system
> (HQ already do this)
> Registered Members received newsletters, participate in local discussion,
> etc, but can not vote.
>
> 2. Verified Members
> Any registered members who has either attended a physical meeting or sent 
> in
> a copy or scan of their valid ID card. Verified members received member 
> card
> and may vote on local elections
>
> 3. Profiled Members
> Any verified member that has sent in a picture of them wearing their 
> member
> card (this way, there is no old pictures in record, fake I.D. etc)
> Another requirement is to send in a short biodata (date of birth, last
> education, etc...).
> Profiled member MAY and MUST vote on general elections. This is done so 
> that
> the number of voters participating in any elections will be high. If
> Profiled Member does not vote on 2 subsequent election, their membership
> status degrades until they re-verify their commitment.
>
>
> 4. Donating Member.
> Any registered member who donate money to the cause. Donating members
> receive recognition and receive souvenir(s) and discounts depending on the
> amount donated.
>
> 5. Pioneer Members
> Any members who has been known to actively involved in furthering the 
> cause
> of organization in the past. Pioneer Members are also Profiled Members, 
> with
> no possibility of being degraded.
>
> ---
> We currently have professional certification programs, online study
> materials, etc. We also hold seminars and workshops frequently, and plan 
> to
> assist in job placement, R&D efforts, etc. These things are not free, and
> available to the public in the above class at the same price. We realize
> though, that there are people who would like to be our regular, and for 
> that
> we created the 6 th member class:
>
> 6. Subscription Member
> Any Profiled Member who has paid subscription fee. Subscription Member is
> entitled to discounts, free entries, magazines and so on, depending on the
> current list of benefits.
>
>
> All member levels may inspect the books (financial report) of the chapter,
> and submit ideas for further developments and enhancements
>
>
> Herein closed my email.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Irwan Effendi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James M Galvin" <galvin at elistx.com>
> To: "Andres Oliva" <aoliva at isoc-cat.org>; 
> <chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [chapter-delegates] Results of the board discussion on
> membership (redux)
>
>
>> [[ THIS IS A RESEND BECAUSE I MADE AN ERROR IN MY PRIOR POSTING. ]]
>>
>> Andres,
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestions.  Here are my comments about each.
>>
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, March 14, 2005 5:49 PM +0100 Andres Oliva
>> <aoliva at isoc-cat.org> wrote:
>>
>> > To eliminate the "pay for vote" system for the individual membership.
>>
>> I regret to say that this is not an option.  Individual members have
>> always been an important community to ISOC and the Board has made it
>> clear that it wants to continue that principle.  This includes making
>> individual members eligible to vote in the direct election of Trustees.
>>
>>
>> > To re-establish the downgraded "associate members" to the "global or
>> > chapter members" level.
>>
>> We will do this.  Do I understand your specific suggestion to be that
>> instead of using the label "Associate Member" you would like to be called
>> "Chapter Member"?
>>
>>
>> > To work together with the chapters in order to research, discuss,
>> > test and apply identification systems to launch the individual
>> > membership level, guaranteeing that every interested citizen will have
>> > the right to one, and only one, vote (for free, of course).
>>
>> I encourage you make suggestions on how we could do this.  I have been
>> involved in extended technology discussion about how this might be done
>> and we have never come up with a practical system.
>>
>>   [[ THE ERROR WAS FORGETTING TO SAY "never" IN THE PRIOR SENTENCE. ]]
>>
>> Keep in mind that a critical component of the system is control to the
>> extent that it is not possible to bias an election.  That feature is
>> nearly impossible to achieve unless you *trust* the Chapter.
>> Unfortunately, although 99% of all the Chapters can be trusted, it only
>> takes one to bias an election.  And I will point out that this very
>> nearly happened in prior ISOC elections.  Thus, we need a system that
>> does not require trusting Chapters.  It is sad that that is a requirement
>> but that is where we are.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>