[chapter-delegates] New Membership Level

[Philippe Le Roux]

I think that we are in ISOC chapters and ISOC HQ a lot of people trying to 
make good things qith good intentions.

But the way it's runinng is not very good and the autonomy of Reston from 
chapters is not a good support of the self governance we promote in our 
mission.

Maybe we can think about moving ISOC HQ outside from the USA for giving it 
the oporutnity to discover a lot of cultures and contexts, it's supposed to 
represent and defend.

Maybe we can think too a new form of participative democracy based on new 
models like open source and let go the old politican form of "power 
delegation" to uncontroled "representatives".

Maybe we can think about how involve people in ISOC activities and not how 
to impose them our choices.

At 07:00 2005-03-07, Veni Markovski wrote:
>Dear Jacek, dear colleagues,
>
>>Yes,  ISOC certainly has  a plentiful  of  tasks to discuss and solve, 
>>which are much more important
>>then discussing  how to collect and manage fees, which (compared to .org 
>>money) are practically not needed at all.
>>
>>But to solve those real problems ISOC needs plentiful of skilled and 
>>passionate members - that is why we cannot
>>understand why ISOC HQ:
>>- has deeply offended  the majority of its membership by naming them
>>'associate' members
>>- has created a clear divide between the rich and the poor ISOC members.
>
>
>ISOC members are either passionate and skilled or not. The fact that they 
>are being called "associate members" would not change their skills. It may 
>change their passion, but only to some extent. ISOC chapters are good 
>exactly for this - they bring passionate people who are skilled to work 
>for the good of the Internet in their countries. It's not obligatory that 
>those people are also ISOC members, as long as they do the job on the 
>ground in the country.
>
>I think we need to build a process within ISOC for better communications 
>between chapters and Reston. We also need to have a process for 
>preliminary consultations on important decisions, concerning chapters. We 
>need to define a process that keeps HQ accountable for all aspects of ISOC 
>activities - standards, education and policy.
>
>While I may agree or disagree with some of the points in the mailing list, 
>I think we're facing one of the many crisis, but we don't have crisis 
>management - neither chapters, nor ISOC HQ. Of course, in an ideal world, 
>there will be no crisis between chapters and HQ, but we don't live in such 
>a world.
>
>I think that me, Patrick and Rosa will raise that question in Minneapolist 
>this coming Friday, but this will be another "ad-hoc" work, without proper 
>process how to handle this. In fact, when chapter-elected Trustees do 
>something like that, this may raise the question about that very fact - 
>since although elected by chapters, why do we raise that problem, etc.
>
>I believe that the best outcome after solving the current problem, would 
>be if we build a process of building proper communications and procedures 
>for working with chapters.
>
>What do you think?
>
>veni
>
>

*PLR!

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