[chapter-delegates] Re: [pignet] Subject: New Expanded membership program

[Philippe Le Roux]

Lynn,

I think there is a large consensus in this list that the move about new 
mebership was a bad one. I'm not sure who's is responsable, but as you are 
the president, I urge you to stop it and go back.

Remove the information about the double level of membership in the website 
and restart the process from the beginnng.

Before any change we need to know why Isoc needs so much this money for 
developing apartheid membserhip. We need to know what it's done actually 
with the ISOC's budget and let us particpate in the management of this 
budget and the problems associated (like finding less expensive ways to do 
things as proposed by som chapters)

I can't imagine that an organization like ISOC can be managed by surveys 
(what a concept about democracy).

I can't imagine an ISOC creating such a digital divide when having in our 
mission :

- Fosters an environment for international cooperation, community, and a 
culture that enables self-governance to work
- Serves as a focal point for cooperative efforts to promote the Internet 
as a positive tool to benefit all people throughout the world

I think the new membership fights this mission and managing by survey too.

ISOC is a worldwide and universal organization, not a club of rich people 
for helping the poors without their participation...

In case we need absolutely to charge a fee for membership, I suggest this 
fee as a percentage of revenue, for example it can be 0,05% of anual revenue.

I feel that we have an explosive context and that it's better to move back 
than to have an open international revolution of ISOC. (or maybe it's time 
to have it ;-)

How about a spanish and french translation of this debate. I'm sure some of 
the african and latin chapters concerned have not yet given their opinion.



At 01:13 2005-03-07, Jacek Gajewski wrote:
>Lynn,
>
>Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>
>>No, I said it is "no better than a DOS attack" as it does not seem 
>>intended to support a constructive discussion but rather seems designed 
>>only to fill my mailbox - which will only get in the way of having a 
>>discussion.  A letter from the PICISOC Chapter President stating the 
>>chapter's concerns would have had the same effect and, in my personal 
>>opinion, would have been more effective.
>
>
>
>>I understand your concern that if your mailbox is filled with thousends 
>>of  protest letters, your ability to perform  normal  mail exchange will 
>>be limited.  May be, the ISOQ HQ admin should set up for you a special 
>>account, where the ISOC member can send those protest mails. And then you 
>>can analyze them separately.
>
>
>In  1989 I was organizing a campaign to collect signatures of Polish 
>scientist and students on a petition to Presiden Bush, to lift the COCOM 
>restrictions, which didn't allow (post-)comunist countries to join  to the 
>net (BITNET at that time). And a signal from the White House/Capitol was 
>crystal clear - you have to collect 10.000 signatures to be effective. 
>They didn't said that it will be 'DOS attack' on White House, they found 
>it a normal (for US type of democracy) way of expressing peoples will.
>
>Since the letters sent by chapter delegates seem to have no desired effect 
>on ISOC HQ  [we would expect at least the suspension of introduction of 
>new system, if not the apologies or at least a clear statement that this 
>issue will be re-considered at next BoT meeting], then in my opinion we 
>have no other way to make clear how much we are dissapointed than to 
>organize a massive protest action, in a style which is characteristic for 
>US style of democracy.
>
>Best Regards,
>Jacek Gajewski
>ISOC-PL
>

*PLR!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Le Roux
Analyste Internet
Associé
V(DL)2 Inc.