[Chapter-delegates] APPLICATION for form ISOC Democratic Republic of Congo chapter - please review

[Oscar A. Robles-Garay]

Veni, Alejandro,

What you are doing is giving rights to use the trademark "ISOC" to 
third parties in other countries.

This trademark is charged with TRUST, earned by many people in 
several countries (like you) for several years and ISOC HQ should 
ensure who is asking for this TRUST and conduct a due diligence for 
this purpose.

Allowing anybody, just because that represent more hands, is a risk 
that attempts against the ISOC reputation itself (the HQ, the good 
chapters and people involved in them). So, I believe ISOC should step 
into a reasonable checklist before giving it's blesing to additional 
chapters... or even, to keep our current ones (that's their call)

(And don't get me wrong, I don't have anything about this two specific cases)


Oscar

At 11:05 AM 1/22/2007, Veni Markovski wrote:
>Alejandro,
>we've discussed the Romanian proposal for quite a while now (years),
>and it was time to do it. As for Congo, I believe Didier did some
>work on the ICANN NomCom some years ago, and the work was good. But
>the general understanding which I have is that as long as there are
>volunteers within the broader ISOC community to organize themselves,
>and do some work for the good of the Internet, we, the other
>chapters, should support them. In the case of Congo, what makes good
>impression, is that they are forming an NGO to do the work. It's
>generally good for ISOC to have as chapters other organizations,
>formally founded, rather than just group of people - esp. when we
>talk about chapter approval, funding, communications, etc.
>
>Best,
>Veni
>
>
>At 04:33 PM 1/22/2007  +0000, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> >Veni,
> >
> >great to read you.
> >
> >Does your email imply that you know the proponents of both and trust that:
> >
> >1. they represent a fraction of the Internet community in their countries;
> >2. are able to represent ISOC's ideals and plans;
> >3. they are honest dealers who will play straight for all involved;
> >4. are not overriding, sequestering, or otherwise playing foul with
> >other former or possible proponents of a chapter;
> >5. will run their chapter as far as possible in a democratic,
> >transparent manner;
> >6. are reasonably independent from pressures of special interests?
> >
> >(and so on, i.e., are you telling us briefly that you have done your
> >share of due diligence on both? I would bet you know well the
> >principals in Romania and can answer "yes" to all of the above but
> >don't know equally well how much you are acquainted with our friends
> >from Congo, as instead Wallonie and Luxembourg, i.e. Marie-Anne and
> >Patrick have documented.)
> >
> >This is in no way a challenge to your knowledge! My thought is that
> >when ISOC staff consults the chapter delegates on these matters they
> >are not only looking for applause and warm welcomes, which tend to
> >be well deserved, but asking for the things that Marie-Anne and
> >Patrick have replied to. We form a "Web of trust" of sorts.
> >
> >BTW based on the information provided till now I support the two
> >applications, and hope that someone has indeed documented answers to
> >the due-diligence questions.
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Veni Markovski
>http://www.veni.com
>
>check also my blog:
>http://blog.veni.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chapter-delegates mailing list
>Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates