[chapter-delegates] How we can improve the chapter <-> BoT relations

[Baker Fred]

That makes sense if ISOC is constituted as a federation of chapters. 
It, however, is not; we have individual members (we had paying 
individual members before we had chapter members) and we have 
organizational members.

Should the board therefore submit all decisions it makes to the 
chapters, the organizational members, and a plebicite of the individual 
members, before taking any actions? Exactly how should this work?

To be very honest, this sounds like a recipe for gridlock. I don't see 
how we will be able to accomplish anything.

On Mar 17, 2005, at 6:44 AM, Carlos Vera Q wrote:
> Veni, you must have a very concrete process
>
> See here:
>
> "1. From now on, whenever there's a board decision or management 
> decision, that includes some document (e.g. Strategic Plan, new 
> membership model, etc.) that may be discussed, this should be 
> published either to the full chapter-delegates list, or to a smaller 
> one, where only interested parties should subscribe (I'd prefer the 
> latter)."
>
> Internet allows every member to vote on every decision and this should 
> take the same time for a board or an Assembly of members. More 
> deeply,there is no reason to have a Board. Representation on 
> electronic age have changed we do not need representative which are 
> elected to make decisions fast and in short time, and this can be 
> acomplished by a general assembly on Internet no matter what issue and 
> how urgent it is. Rethink representation the whole way.
>
> There is no reason political or technical to make smaller lists of 
> "interested parties"
>
> Simply every issue is posted in a forum, take a short or long 
> discussion, votation and decision based on this voting is made. 
> SIMPLE!!
>
> 2. "Give the chapters 1 week for discussion, after which all comments 
> should be reviewed, taken into consideration. Should they not be used, 
> ISOC staff
> must provide reason why."
>
> "Taken into consideration" can be as simple as say "this is not an 
> option" arrogant and simple statement from some divine chief.
>
> Again, every you simply have the issue complete on Internet, have a 
> discussion and votation. Every member can participate. No Board is 
> needed.
>
> 3. "After document is published, no further discussion should take 
> place, unless there's a big error or mistake, which has been 
> discovered after the one week period."
>
> Again so subjective... Who decide what a big error or mistake is? 
> Simply again members. Discuss and vote.
>
> "This may be not a good process..." You are right
>
> This is Internet Age. Let's use what we have here. Let's think 
> e-democracy
>
>
> Carlos Vera Quintana
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
> To: <chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
> Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <st.amour at isoc.org>; "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:49 AM
> Subject: [chapter-delegates] How we can improve the chapter <-> BoT 
> relations
>
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> here's my proposal:
>>
>> 1. From now on, whenever there's a board decision or management 
>> decision, that includes some document (e.g. Strategic Plan, new 
>> membership model, etc.) that may be discussed, this should be 
>> published either to the full chapter-delegates list, or to a smaller 
>> one, where only interested parties should subscribe (I'd prefer the 
>> latter).
>>
>> 2. Give the chapters 1 week for discussion, after which all comments 
>> should be reviewed, taken into consideration. Should they not be 
>> used, ISOC staff must provide reason why.
>>
>> 3. After document is published, no further discussion should take 
>> place, unless there's a big error or mistake, which has been 
>> discovered after the one week period.
>>
>> This may be not a good process, but at least gives some ideas of how 
>> a normal organization should be working.
>>
>> I'd urge even more - to have such processes built for every act and 
>> action of ISOC.
>>
>> Then the Board will be in far better position, as today many of the 
>> chapter delegates believe that if they tell a Board Trustee 
>> something, then it will be reviewed and accepted by the BoT as a 
>> decision. We need to have a process for such requests, too. While I 
>> don't have anything against to bring a message from chapters to the 
>> Board, if we want this message to make a difference, there should be 
>> a process for handling such messages.
>>
>> I think another process that we may wish to develop is how to form 
>> working committees of chapter representatives (may be the 
>> delegates?), that will work on the three pillars. I am sure that many 
>> good ideas from countries worldwide could be used, esp. in the WSIS 
>> and the UN environment.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> At 18:56 15-03-05  -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
>>> Thank you Mike, well said.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Monday, March 14, 2005 7:46 PM -0800 Mike Todd 
>>> <miketodd at miketodd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Galvin, David McAuley and other Chapter Delegates,
>>>>
>>>> What we have experienced on this list over the past couple of weeks 
>>>> is a
>>>> massive misunderstanding and/or lack of effective marketing and/or -
>>>> well, you fill in  the blanks, chances are we have hit that wall 
>>>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>