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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Rodel,


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Rodel Urani <rodel.urani at strategict.pro>wrote:

>  Dear Veni, Sivasubramanian and All,
>
> The Philippines Chapter's case.
>
>  Kindest regards,
> -Rodel
>  *From:* Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 5:38 AM
> *To:* Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
> *Cc:* sphere-labels at elists.isoc.org ; Chapter Delegates<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] [Sphere-labels] COMMENTS INVITED:
> DraftAffiliation Agreement between ISOC Global and ISOC {Chapter}
>
> 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.
>>
>
> That depends on how they would use "oversight". We have volunteered, that
> is all that matters. We did not ask for support especially money from
> ISOC.org, we were after the support of our local colleagues and founding
> members. There was requirements we have to fulfill.
>

ISOC.org did not tell or dictate us what to do, including maybe our future
> activities,
>

If the present trend continues, at a future point there would be a situation
where ISOC.org or at least individuals within the ISOC hierarchy would be in
a position to directly or indirectly tell the Chapters what to do and what
not to do and control chapters.

We don't exactly have a situation now, but there are instances that have
been quite disturbing. I sent a mail message soon after I-Net Delhi (not to
the list, but to a random shortlist of Chapter Delegates, privately. If you
wish to see that message, please mail me and I will forward you that
message). In brief, it was an instance where Chapters present were ignored
by some of the members of the Staff who organized a meeting of Indian
Internet businessmen and representatives from Government. There was also an
earlier complaint about I-Net Africa not involving local chapters. There
were other instances, to my knowledge, of ISOC Global organizing local
events or interacting with a certain Government or local 0rganizations
without consulting or involving the local chapters. If this trend extends
further, at some future point of time, we may have staff members in the
Regional Bureau or Chapter Support who may lose sight of the fact that
Chapters aren't exactly beneath the Central structure.

Sivasubramanian M


> however we see and understood what are we heading into. It is also unfair
> to say, since Chapter are solely a legal entity in their own countries, that
> we can do anything including what is not aligned to the policies in place by
> ISOC.org in support for the Chapters.
>
> What I understand and like it is that there is flexibility as to how
> ISOC.org and Chapters do their own job, whether in support of the
> other, their own interests and vice versa.
>
>
>> *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.
>
> Neither ISOC.org is the Chapter's hat nor Chapters are the umbrella of
> ISOC.org are written in our by-laws (at least in the Philippines). I do not
> think it is worth debating particularly this issue. When we applied and
> become accredited Chapter of ISOC.org we agreed on some parameters and that
> is still very clearly stated in our by-laws, again in our own case. Like for
> instance in the Philippines, the article I states that ISOC Philippines
> hereafter referred to as the "Chapter" of the Internet Society hereafter
> referred to as the "Association". Unless yours are different.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> This is not the case.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100717/f16b08ea/attachment.htm>