[Chapter-delegates] [Sphere-labels] COMMENTS INVITED: Draft Affiliation Agreement between ISOC Global and ISOC {Chapter}

[Veni Markovski]

Dear Shiva, and everyone,
I don't know who came with the word "oversight", but this is something 
that cannot exist, according to the laws in the European Union (at 
least). The chapters are legally independent bodies, founded and 
performing under the laws of the country they are situated in. One of 
the items that has bothered me a lot with regards to some applications, 
was that there were requests from ISOC.org to have the statute of the 
chapters "reflect" what ISOC.org believed should be there. In many 
(all?) cases that's impossible. I would have understand it, if the 
chapters were created by ISOC.org, funded by ISOC, and therefor ISOC 
could have a say in what they do - the same way ISOC.org decides what 
the PIR does, and how it spends its money (to fund ISOC).
In the case of the chapters, this is all different. *ISOC.org is not the 
chapters' hat, or their umbrella; quite the opposite - the chapters are 
the umbrella of ISOC *for they bring ISOC its legitimacy, and not the 
other way around.
I don't believe that anyone seriously, or even jokingly, would suggest 
that the chapters should be less independent. However, having said that, 
*if people feel this is the case, please, address it immediately in 
*straight words right now, on these lists, and make sure your voice is 
being heard.

best,
veni

On 7/1/2010 13:03, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> Dear Anupam,
>
> Two years ago, when the Sphere project was launched, I was the one who 
> proposed the idea of evaluating Chapters, I was the one who proposed 
> the idea of devising systems to withdraw the charters in cases where a 
> chapter has deviated from Isoc's mission and goals. ( see slides 10 - 12 )
>
> Yesterday's comments on the draft affiliation document also come from 
> me. These comments are written based on observations and first hand 
> experiences and based on the understanding that a lot of subjectivity 
> could occur in the process of Chapter oversight.
>
> Isoc as an organization needs a system by which it aligns Chapters to 
> its mission and programs, but plenty of caution is needed while 
> deciding systems for Chapter oversight. For various reasons I strongly 
> feel that Chapter oversight should be by a council of chapters and not 
> by staff. This is to ensure that the oversight process does not go 
> wrong to pave way for the disaffiliation of older chapters with 
> knowledgeable community members.
>
> New Chapters are more easily managed. In a scenario where there are 
> Chapters who do not ask questions and Individual members who don't 
> even have a functional mailing list, the policy and positions would 
> come from a small of group of individuals while the world's impression 
> is that the policy evolved from a bottom up process.
>
> ICANN has a participative process to improve Institutional Confidence 
> and we also need to internally initiate such an exercise to make the 
> Isoc process more participative. It is far more important to ensure a 
> participative structure in Isoc Governance. The first step would be to 
> ensure that Chapters remain strong and independent.
>
> The discussion on the blog is closed so there would no longer be any 
> discussion on these comments on the Sphere group. I hope we have a 
> constructive discussion on this topic in the Chapter Delegates list.
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:02 PM, anupam agrawal 
> <agrawal_anupam at hotmail.com <mailto:agrawal_anupam at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Shiva,
>
>     Glad to receive your comments. Please find my responses:
>
>     I think there is absolute certainity that there are two parties
>     otherwise what an agreement whether affiliation or not is
>     about. Even in marriages there are two parties called Husband &
>     Wife who take vows which is a kind of agreement. Does this ritual
>     leave anyone outside or decides who is on top or to the contrary
>     is a way to to align themselves for a common cause. I feel this
>     affiliation agreement is a step to tie the knots of ISOC Global
>     and ISOC Chapters to be aligned for the common cause which is the
>     reason of existence for both ISOC Global & ISOC Chapters. I feel
>     we should be less fuzzy on the edges so that the distance to the
>     core is fast covered. So when you say outside I find it hard to
>     understand outside of what? There are chapter representatives on
>     the board to drive the issues and regional bureaus to drive the
>     things at operational level.
>
>      In another point of yours over stipulation that the performance
>     standards are already there in some form or other which is correct
>     but this agreement tries to consolidate all of them together. I
>     agree to an extent that chapters should be notified in decisions
>     which happens with respect to community grants or travel
>     fellowhips but two things ; What will chapter do with that
>     notification and secondly how are the chapters positioned to
>     comment on somebody's goodwill? I think the way out can be that
>     there has to be 1 mandatory project for all chapters. But with
>     fund restriction and taking care of the scenarion that one
>     individual member has a good project but is not aligned with the
>     local chapter , I feel for greater good the situation can
>     continue. Besides, I have felt while applying for the community
>     grant that the scope is so wide that at times it is difficult to
>     focus on the area. There has to be some way wherein the focus is
>     given to a particular theme for a year or more funding should be
>     brought in as this is a sure shot way of chapter making an impact
>     at local level.
>
>     As far as policy positions are concerned , I completely agree that
>     ISOC Global when taking a view for a country should initiate
>     discussion with the chapter. This will help to keep everybody on
>     the same page.
>
>     This agreement in a way puts a process around which gnerates a
>     dashboard stating whether a chapter has worked or not. No
>     staff decides but the process itself says what has been achieved
>     or not and where the corrective actions are required. Now it has
>     been endeavor of the task force to remove the subjectivity of the
>     goals and assign numbers so that action taken turns the dashboard
>     green. If you feel any performance standard is without numbers or
>     has a subjectivity attached, please bring up specifically and that
>     should be discussed / changed.
>
>     I feel 18 months is too long and it should be shortened and
>     instead of that there can be a oversight committee.
>
>     INstead of thinking it as a review by ISOC Global , I would like
>     to take it as a Self Review. I would like to know scenario/s
>     wherein you feel that inspite of Chapters having achieved the
>     minimum standards, there can be intrusion.
>
>     Let's discuss on them and thrash it out. That's the purpose of
>     this list I believe.
>
>     Regards
>     Anupam Agrawal
>     Chair
>     Kolkata Chapter
>     Cell : 990 399 2838
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100715/d3ee5bae/attachment.htm>