[chapter-delegates] Position of ISOC Italy on Veni Markovski's petition

Thu May 5 13:07:21 PDT 2005

Veni, I only address one point in your message:

When you say  "They expressed their opinion openly, transparently and democratically - in a relevant mailing list. I don't see anything bad here; do you?", may I add that they most likely haven't expressed their opinion spontaniously, but only after several rounds of urging private messages by you. In addition to those that I've seen for our Chapter  - we refused to join the petition drive - we've all seen glimpses of the others in some of the responses that the Chapters have given to your varying messages.

I personally don't mistrust your motives. I believe, however, that you occasionally get carried away by your enthusiasm and seem to lose your capability for rational judgement, which makes it very difficult for you to effectively advance the courses you intend to drive, no matter how good they may be.
I started to wonder, when you years ago boasted of having inflated the membership roll by having made all your small children members of your Chapter and ISOC. That would not be legal in Finland (for a normal registered association) - I don't know about Bulgaria or elsewhere.  

Sincerely,

Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Tilkankatu 12 A 3, 00300 Helsinki, Finland
(09) 4368 2643, 0400 825 943; Int'l: +358 - 9 4368 2643 / 400 825 943
  ----- Alkuperäinen viesti ----- 
  Lähettäjä: Veni Markovski 
  Vastaanottaja: Vittorio Bertola ; Veni Markovski 
  Kopio: chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org 
  Lähetetty: 4. toukokuuta 2005 15:22
  Aihe: Re: [chapter-delegates] Position of ISOC Italy on Veni Markovski's petition

  Dear colleagues, dear Vittorio, 
  (this turned out to be a longer message than originally intended)

  At 11:42 04-05-05  +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

    I don't think I ever asked to anyone to stop speaking. At the same time,
    your exclusion and your subsequent complaints were one of the main
    subjects of discussion (at least among the "Internet people") in the
    corridors of the last WGIG consultations in Geneva.

  Well, I was not there, so I don't know what exactly was discussed. 
  But I am surprised that our internal issue has been a topic in Geneva, as it has been of concern only on the chapters' delegates list. It's also important to keep in mind that the discussion was started not by me, but by a decision of the NomCom and the lack of explanation, which was raised by some of the chapters. They expressed their opinion openly, transparently and democratically - in a relevant mailing list. I don't see anything bad here; do you?

    Whenever ISOC speaks up, there are people (even some ISOC members!)
    noting that its positions are more or less identical to those of the ICC
    and of other business representatives, and making explicit claims that
    ISOC statements do not represent "the voice of the Internet", but, at
    most, the voice of a handful of people from Washington, D.C., with
    strong connections to the policy and business environment of the United
    States. Your case was brought as the ultimate example of this.

  Of course it will be. You see, it is an example of the ISOC HQ behavior, and to deny it, would be naive and not serving well to the Internet Society. When we have a problem, we need to address it, not to hide it under the carpet. If ISOC is open, democratic and transparent organization, it will be respected by all. On the other hand, let's not mistake "respected" with "liked". If everyone likes ISOC, then ISOC would have a real problem. Because when everyone likes you, that means you don't have principles. I wouldn't mind if those people don't like ISOC, but respect it for its positions. What bothers me is when ISOC positions are not respected outside of ISOC. 

    Now, I think that the first responsibility of this situation resides
    with the ISOC leadership itself, and with their lack of dialogue with
    the rest of the world (to make another example, to the best of my

  Vittorio,
  These are not only your concerns. And the least problem of ISOC leadership is lack of dialogue. There're much bigger issues, which include not only the leadership, but the organization as a whole - underestimation of civil society, ignoring the chapters, blaming everyone else, but not themselves for the results, etc. I will give you an example in the next paragraph below. 

    However, the heated climate
    of the discussion between HQ and most Chapters reflects to the outside,
    and makes ISOC in the overall much weaker. This is why I think that we
    should all use less exclamation marks, and try to work out solutions
    that do not exacerbate the conflicts.

  I hope you will be able to quote me using exclamation marks in my relations with ISOC HQ? 
  But here's an example: you say "most Chapters". Our leadership says there are only "5 - 6" chapters who are not happy with the current model of ISOC. I have made a brief calculation on this list, that there are about 30 chapters who write regularly here. I've told this number to Lynn and Fred. The next time I hear the number, it's again "5 - 6". Even during our meeting in Mar del Plata, where there were 12 (twelve) chapters, and all (but one - Geneva) of them expressing their fears to ISOC, the number is still "5 - 6". 

    Specifically, I think that the only way to solve the pending contrast
    between many Chapters and HQ is for some people to act as mediators
    trusted by all parties, trying to convince the HQ to listen more to
    Chapters, and the Chapters to gain some more trust in the HQ. 

  Vittorio, 
  this would have worked if the HQ cared about the chapters. Don't you understand it - they just don't care about chapters. They listen, but they don't hear us (this, by the way, was repeated several times during the Mar del Plata meeting by many of the chapters). I think there's a different way to solve the problems. To say that there is "only one way" is a very strong statement. 

    My personal concern is that, after all this noise, even if you were elected
    it would be very hard for you to have a constructive dialogue with the
    HQ and the rest of the Board of Trustees. I'm not saying that this is
    your fault, or that you should not say what you think, but I am worried
    about what will come out of this situation.

  You should not worry. I believe that if I am elected, that will be a clear signal for ISOC HQ, that their attempts to override the chapters, their way of accepting chapters as the necessary evil, would need to change. You see, sometimes we need to send signals, strong signals. We have tried everything - contribution: in December 2003 (two thousand and three!) I have sent to the Board the work of a specially designed Board Committee, consisting of me, Alan Greenberg, Glenn Ricart, Osten, George Sadowsky,where we have concluded, among other items:

    There are a number of initiatives which will consume far fewer resources but generate reasonable rewards on a much shorter time-frame.
    1. Create a methodology under which Chapters can become distribution channels within their territory (aimed at developing countries).
    2. Proactive work with Chapters to identify local educational needs and then help them implement.

  I can find and quote perhaps tens of messages, where we are discussing important issues for the chapters. You don't think that I am the only voice on the Board, that brings these messages to it, do you? And have you noticed something to have been used of these recommendations?

  What some people want - more than ever today - is to have a Board of listeners, not of speakers. A Board of followers, not of leaders. Board that does not care about public policy in the way chapters see it, but in the way they consider right. Board that is obedient, not that is challenging. 
  But it must be clear - my statement does not mean the current Board consists of people who are not leaders, or who are listeners. On the contrary - every Trustee is a great individual, expert in their fields, good person. However, with respect to the relations of the ORGANIZATION to the chapters, that's a different story. With respect to relations of the ORGANIZATION to public policy, that's a different story. What bothers the ORGANIZATION is that it wants to be above things, to be neutral. It does not want to take a strong stance. 

  Today's ISOC HQ wants ISOC to be neutral. 
  On the discussion on neutrality, which some of our colleagues consider a valuable asset for ISOC, you might appreciate the words of the US historian, Howard Zinn, in his recent interview on Democracy Now! titled:  "To Be Neutral, To Be Passive in a Situation is to Collaborate with whatever is going on". HOWARD ZINN: I don't believe it's possible to be neutral. The world is already moving in certain directions. And to be neutral, to be passive in a situation like that is to collaborate with whatever is going on. And I, as a teacher, do not want to be a collaborator with whatever is happening in the world. I want myself, as a teacher, and I want you as students, to intercede with whatever is happening in the world. (For the whole interview, see: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/1350240) 

  I can't promise I will be able to change this alone. But I will for sure try to do that, and if chapters want ISOC to be the organization we all dreamed of, then they will support the voices, not the silence. Because all chapters together can change the status quo, and make a difference. 

  Keep in mind what you've seen on the WSIS Internet Governance mailing list, which I have not forwarded here yet, although may be I should. Keep in mind what people like Carlos, Izumi, Bill Drake, Hans, etc. say about ISOC - this should switch on a red alert light in our minds, and should make us think of how to solve the problems, not how to hide from them. 

  I don't think that I am the problem of ISOC. 
  The problem of ISOC is ISOC's behavior. 

  best,
  veni 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20050505/9e06c582/attachment.htm>