[Chapter-delegates] An invitation to the Webinar re. LoA/Dashboard and New Tools available

[nhklein]

Hi Everybody,

after having been cut off technically since yesterday for one day (local 
problems), I am responding to some mails which came in in the meantime – 
as my final contribution to the list before the webinar in about 3 
hours. Of course the webinar will be an opportunity to talk things over 
– but, as has been said in so many postings on the Chapter-Delegates 
list, there are quite a number of fundamental issues which need 
clarification of a nature more serious than can be dealt with in a 
series of different webinars, where there will be different participants 
every time.

As the mail from Christian de Larrinaga – down here – says, there are 
problems which need to be clarified with all concerned, before it is 
possible to respond to some details:
/
= = =
I am clear that before the local board can seriously engage with this 
issue it would be important to know how ISOC views the status of its own 
members.

What is an ISOC global member?

- in relation to a chapter that member signed up for through the ISOC site
- in relation to ISOC (voting rights etc)
- in relation to chapter members who signed up directly at the local 
internet society organisation service.
= = =
Some clarity over the intended status of members of ISOC is absolutely 
crucial to how chapters need to respond. I think this is a matter for 
the Trustees and if Staff are engaged...
= = =/

I appreciate also that Anne Lord joined now the debate, helping us all 
to understand some of the pre-history of where we find ourselves now all 
of sudden.

But I say consciously “all of a sudden” because this history had been 
broken off a long time ago - and as Christopher Wilkinson reminded us 
recently, there had been quite some efforts not to let this history break:
/
= = =
1. When the staff receive substantive input from Chapters and members 
(e.g. the London November 2010 Chapter workshop), then an alternative 
proposal should be sent for consultation within three or four weeks. The 
LoA episode, with more than a year's silence from the staff, is not 
acceptable.

2. Most of your interlocutors are elected delegates from their Chapters 
or other entities (e.g. ISOC-ECC). Accordingly this is really inappropriate:

 > requested not to forward it further until we have heard and 
incorporated your feedback.

Whether delegates consult their authorities or their members is their 
decision. Not a question for the staff.

3. When the staff state that an issue has been <<approved by ISOC>>, 
this should be associated, in advance, with a schedule for the relevant 
decision by the Board of Trustees, with opportunity for Chapters and 
members to provide timely input. Clearly, on matters of institutional 
and political significance, a simple e-mail from a staff member does not 
constitute "approval" by ISOC.
= = =/

I did not see that Christopher and ISOC-ECC got any response on this list.

And I do not list up here the various efforts I made on this list to get 
responses.


Thanks, Anne, for sharing information on the following plans:
/
 > The webinars are being rolled out twice a week for as long as it 
takes.  There is no "rush", and I apologise if it seems this way.  If 
you cant make this weeks webinar, we will invite you to another./

Until now, I had not been aware at all that you intend these webinars 
with varying participants to continue twice a week into some future. I 
really had the impression that there was a rush, with a quick sequence 
of changes between two-slot and three-slot and two-slot Doodle options, 
just for this one week.
/
Regardless of process, with such enormous diversity across the Chapters 
and particular situations, I fully anticipate that there will be a small 
number who will not be entirely in agreement with the details. What we 
are seeking is a balance across the diversity of opinions, noting that 
it will be impossible to satisfy everyone.
/
This makes me again state that I obviously misunderstood the intention 
of having a LoA officially rolled out which would include provisions to 
discontinue the status of a Chapter as affiliated  (without an appeal 
process). If this is really the intention, we would need a text which 
goes beyond providing a balance of diverse opinions, but something we 
can trust in situations of crisis and conflict.

As Prof. ANG Peng Hwa's comment also shows, he – like myself and many 
others – did not understand some important goals in the way they showed 
up on the Chapter list:
/
 >> I appreciate that you have a rather heavy email traffic volume but a 
paragraph or two in explanatory text, even in seemingly redundant 
communication (we need redundant communication to communicate) will be 
helpful. And, as in this case, could eventually save you more work.
/

And as John Moore remarked:
/

 >> I think the Affiliation Agreement is an extremely important 
document.  It goals are laudable -- to strengthen the Internet Society 
and the Chapters by creating accountability. However, I don't think that 
Chapters have been brought into the process (at least from what I have 
been able to see). Further, as I remember the Bylaws of the Society 
needed revisions to go along with the Affiliation Agreement.  It does 
not appear that these revisions have been made.
 >>
 >> I had provided comments on an earlier version of the Affiliation 
Agreement about a year ago.  Then I heard nothing more  In a quick 
review of this document I find that it still contains major flaws. I do 
not see how Chapters can be asked to sign on without having had a chance 
for the Chapter governing bodies to have some input.
 >>
 >> I will make only a couple of major points, some of which I made before.
 >>
 >> There is no mechanism for resolving a dispute...

 >> As it stands, I would have to recommend to our Chapter's governing 
board that it not sign the Agreement as written.
/
I collected these random point to explain again why I had written

 >> I have now signed in to be available at one of the two Doodle time 
slots – but I did so with some reluctance.

I had elaborated on the reasons with specific points, some of which do 
not fit into a series of webinars where twice a week for quit some time 
different people will raise some points – while we do not have a common 
platform to clarify the basis on which we supposedly stand together.


Norbert
ISOC Cambodia Chapter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120306/dd2e959c/attachment.htm>