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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Veni,


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

>  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.
>

+1.  Well emphasized. Thanks Veni.


> 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
> > 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/20100716/f96a41c8/attachment.htm>