[chapter-delegates] New Membership Level

[Jacek Gajewski]

Dear Jim,

James M Galvin wrote:

>
> Nonetheless, I fully expect we will do the survey again some time soon.

Can we then suspend the decision of introducing $75 membership and make 
sure that the new survey contains  two explicit questions:
1. Are you for or against introducing $75/year membership fee with 
simultaneus change of the name of non-paying members to 'Associate members'?
2. Do you agree or disagree that the group of $75 paying members should 
have their own representatives in BoT?

BTW for the sake of this discussion it would be useful to quote again 
how the relevant questions were formulated two years ago
and what was the numeric result of that survey.

> We are at a little bit of a disadvantage right now because we are only 
> now, 2 years later, able to offer the response to that first survey.

Can you then be sure that the result of the first survey is still valid? 
Simply counting the voices in current discussion *strongly suggests*
 [with  sufficient level of statistical confidence] that the majority of 
ISOC members do *not* want the new level of membership fee. 

In one of the previous mails you wrote that this new level is introduced 
because there is a 'group of people willing to pay $75.'
Now you say, that new level is introduced because ISOC feels obliged to 
implement the results  of  a survey from two years ago.
So, for the third time I kindly ask you to answer *frankly* a very 
simple question:

                                                       _/*Why ISOC 
introduces the $75 membership?*/_

Observing the current discussion, it is hard to believe that 'the group 
willing to pay $75'  *currently* forms the majority of ISOC members,
Ergo, it is not clear that by introducing the $75, ISOC HQ is 
fullfilling the wish of majority of its current members or only a richer 
minority
willing to have their strong representation in BoT.

May be it is good for all of us that this rich minority will have extra 
BoT places? If yes, please explain it, give some convincing arguments
and then probably our discussion will be easier.

>
> Finally, a few people have called for ISOC to withdraw the new paying 
> membership level.

Sorry Jim: Not few!  nearly all  who send their postings share this 
opinion.
The voices  in favour of  '3 BoT seats for $75 Members' came only from 
representatives of ISOC HQ.

>   While I appreciate your passion, since that is what makes Chapters 
> so successful, and I understand your concern that Chapters will suffer 
> if members join ISOC instead of Chapters, let me just reassure you 
> that growing and supporting Chapters and the Associate Members that go 
> with them is a top priority of ISOC.  Chapters are the means with 
> which ISOC members act locally in support of a global mission. We need 
> and want the free membership level so that Chapters can continue to do 
> the job they are doing without being burdened by an ISOC fee.

And because 'supporting Associate Members is the top priority of ISOC'  
therefore ISOC calls them Associate [which sounds pejorative in many 
languages],  changes the proportion of votes in BoT in their disfavour 
and contributes to divide in ISOC family downgrading the majority of 
ISOC members to lower caste.

And we should still believe that 'Internet is for everyone'

To sum up: I call ISOC to suspend the decision of introducing '3 BoT 
seats for $75 Members' system until a serious discussion of its 
consequences [there were even voices of a possible schism] and a new 
survey among the membership at large is done.

Jacek Gajewski
ISOC-PL

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.isoc.org/unsubscribe>