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

[Ramon Morales]

Fred,
In the absence of a vehicle for ISOC wide consultation mechanisms, what Veni
Markovski is suggesting is not a call for a federation of chapters but a
sound manner for the ISOC Board to devise a methodology for consultation of
its most active organized segment that has the capacity to mobilize ISOC
members through its local presence (our chapters). Why would we want to
render this unsound by invoking others who may be similarly left out of the
loop through an ISOC BoT who in its recent actions or lack thereof appears
to be out of touch with the reality of its members and its chapters?

Let's start with some basic concepts that I believe we can all agree
1. The reason why the Internet Society exists is to serve its members and
the Internet community as a whole 
2. Chapters exist to serve members constituted and organized into nations,
cities or regions of the world.

Our chapters form the core of ISOC's most important organizational presence
and are the living channel of communication; the way ISOC reaches out to
every local constituency to allow for unity of action and unity of purpose.
What is being revealed here through this list is something that should be
greeted with great joy by the BoT namely the rise of our chapters as
important, active segments of the global Internet community that ISOC
through its mission and vision chose to employ as a means to organize its
local member constituency throughout the world.

Why do we consistently counterpose our individual and organizational sectors
to our chapters as if the latter stood in contradiction to the former? Or
worse still, why would we believe that empowering and strengthening the
venues for chapter development would undermine or somehow dilute these ISOC
constituencies. On the contrary, our chapters are the best hope that
individual members and organizational members have for the strategic and
tactical decisions of its Board of Trustees to take shape in the form of
concrete policies that lead to concrete actions and allow for specific
measurable results to be attained throughout the world.

Chapters through their existence and organization provide an important
channel for the development of ISOC's leadership within the broader Internet
community. These local leaders are the mainstays of ISOC in their respective
countries; we are telling the ISOC Board here clearly and without ambiguity
that we have not been treated as such.

That being said, we are now in a new phase where through various means ie
Andreu's monthly chats and your recent suggestions for creating common
communications infrastructures and services could herald a new beginning and
start us on the right track. No one wishes to hamstring the Board and create
bottlenecks. What Veni is suggesting will enrich the Board and have its
decisions take hold much more rapidly because you solidify through
consultation the support of your chapter segment and create the respect and
trust that wise leadership utilizes to have its policies carried out. 

What we believe is that the possibilities for greater ISOC presence and
organizational prowess can best be attained through a transformation of our
vision of the chapters and the role we play in the development of standards,
creation of policies with respect to making the Internet accessible and
useful to everyone and maintaining a free and open Internet as its founders
intented it to be.

Warmest regards,
Ramón Morales
Internet Society of Puerto Rico

-----Original Message-----
From: Baker Fred [mailto:fred at cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:05 AM
To: Carlos Vera Q
Cc: chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org; Veni Markovski; Lynn St.Amour
Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] How we can improve the chapter <-> BoT
relations

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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>