[Chapter-delegates] Due diligence

Tue Jan 23 08:39:40 PST 2007

Oscar, Veni, Alejandro and all,

Thank you to Alejandro for raising this important discussion and to  
those who have contributed to the discussion thus far.

Chapter delegates share a common goal in ensuring that ISOC's  
recognition of a new chapter helps preserve the principles that ISOC  
supports. Chapters can provide invaluable knowledge of the people and  
the organisations in the specific locations where new chapters are  
proposed, and may be aware of the situations in which new chapter  
efforts are ongoing.

However, for the reasons that Oscar (and others) have outlined below,  
it is important that we are explicit about the steps of 'due  
diligence' that are taken. Today that is not the case and 'due  
diligence' itself needs to be more robustly applied.

With this in mind it is proposed to add the following to the ISOC  
website:

"ISOC will conduct due diligence, reviewing the application and  
performing necessary tasks in an effort to ensure that the proposed  
Chapter is of a sound basis, able to represent ISOC, and can and will  
adequately represent the Internet community within its constituency.  
The steps of 'due diligence' may include requesting references,  
interviewing the applicant's contact(s), gathering/requesting  
additional information on the applicant, and (for existing  
organizations) requesting information on applicant's leadership and  
operations, and a demonstration of previous involvement with sectors  
of the Internet community"

We would like to hear from other chapters on whether there is support  
in principle for making the steps of 'due diligence' more transparent  
and more robust.  More holistically, with assistance from the  
chapters, a review of the overall policy framework for Chapters is  
planned. This particular issue is a start to that process.

Looking forward to hearing your input.

Best wishes,

Anne
--

On 23/01/2007, at 1:10 AM, Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote:

> 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
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Lord, Senior Manager                             <lord at isoc.org>
Chapter & Individual Memberships                  Ph: +41-22-807-1449
Internet Society (ISOC)                           Fx: +41-22-807-1445
"The Internet is for everyone"                    http://www.isoc.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------