[Chapter-delegates] Application to form a Chapter in Bangalore, India

[Rudi Vansnick]

I fully agree with Veni's comments ... Please give chapters the space to 
grow, no one became adult without having (lots) of growing pains ... 
same happens to organisations and especially in the domain of internet, 
a very complex world. I'm willing to take up again the project in Sphere 
"Corporate, Civil Societies and other sub-groups in ISOC" with specific 
focus on the tension between ISOC HQ and chapters. I know it looks a bit 
like after the facts, but the situation shows the need of bilateral 
discussions where the viewpoints of both parties are needed to reach 
consensus and to create a concept of approach for future cases.

I herewith propose to put this aspect on the agenda in Seoul and will 
prepare necessary docs for effective discussion.

Thanks for your support ...

Rudi Vansnick
President Internet Society Belgium vzw
Voorzitter TIK vzw
Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN)

Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39
GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32
www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be> - www.vansnick.eu <http://www.vansnick.eu>



Veni Markovski schreef:
> Anne, some comments below:
>
> Anne Lord wrote:
>>>>>   1) ISOC HQ should direct members first to existing chapters
>> Yes agreed. This *is* standard procedure.  As I explained previously 
>> we omitted this step and it was not intentional. Please accept our 
>> apologies for this. 
> I'm willing to accept the explanation that by default ISOC does not 
> not do bad things intentionally, if you accept the explanation that 
> the ISOC chapters do not do bad things intentionally. Because 
> sometimes I have the feeling that this is not the case.
>> from:  http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/
>> "Chapters may be established on a *non-exclusive* basis to serve the 
>> needs of any specific, cohesive community of interest. Multiple 
>> Chapters serving overlapping communities are not permitted."
>>
>> The important point here is that the scope of the proposed Chapter 
>> must be sufficiently differentiated and not overlapping.  We will 
>> (and do) work with both parties to ensure that is not the case. 
> You've put in bold the "non-exclusive" basis, but for Shiva and the 
> members of his chapter, I guess the more important part is the "not 
> permitted" part.
>> I hope this explains some of our general procedures. As I said before 
>> we are working to revise the procedures and improve our current 
>> policy framework, so I will be reaching out to many of those that 
>> have posted and have an interest on this topic for help with this 
>> particular piece of work.
> Do you think that a revision of the policy framework will be enough? 
> May be I've missed it, but I haven't seen increasing the importance of 
> the chapters in the ISOC governance model, which could be the only way 
> to show all chapters that they indeed do matter for ISOC. I can 
> understand your and your colleagues frustration, as it seems that a 
> huge discussion only starts, when there is a problem, but don't forget 
> - many of the *good *things we do locally are never coming to your 
> attention as well. But if we do something, which someone (be that a 
> chapter member, a non-member, or just a fake email address) believes 
> is not good, you are also fast on reacting by reaching out to the 
> chapters, asking them questions, initiating investigations in some 
> cases, etc.
>
> So, if you are seriously considering improvement of the policy 
> framework, I believe that many chapters are still wondering why they 
> can elect only 3 of the Board Trustees, while the organizational 
> members elect 6. This is the only real measurement on the importance 
> of the chapters - the right to vote and elect.
>
> best,
> veni
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 08:10:00
>
>