[Chapter-delegates] ISOC's policies - sensitive email

[Veni Markovski]

Eduardo,
it's not that simple math. I think you, others, can probably put more items
to be judged, but we should not "score" ISOC as good or bad. Few weeks ago
I was critical towards the fact that ISOC produces documents, which cannot
be used by anyone at the ITU meetings, and some people believed that I have
aimed my criticism at Sally, which wasn't the case.
It is very easy for ISOC to become defensive - just say something more or
less critical about their policies;-)
The reality is they have put together a good group of people - you all
remember how enthusiastic many of us were last year at this time, when
Markus, Walda, Jacek, to name just 3 of the newcomers, showed up in the
mailing list. The announcement of Paul today is also good, and I expect
more extremely good people to join in the coming weeks. So, why is ISOC
then still using the old policies, which have caused so many issues and
problems with the chapters - that's a question I can't give you an answer.
I see chapters, which have time and again put behind old history and
feelings, in the attempt to reach a consensus-based policy in certain
areas, and yet there's always the perception that if the chapters say
something, whatever small it is, critical, then they are being personal.
That's why today, when I supported Paul, I also said that if people feel
there's something wrong, they shouldn't use their time to aim at the wrong
goal. The people are really very good. If something is not going well, it's
not the people to blame.

Let's think over what we can do for the global Internet, if we feel ISOC is
not doing enough, and just do it.
By the way, for the record, we have done this several times; most recently
at the ITU Plenipotentiary 2010. There was a situation, where ISOC was just
missing from the picture, and it was thanks to the chapters, that key
positive decisions were achieved. I was expecting that ISOC, given that
experience, would be more critical towards themselves, and less critical
towards the chapters, but it is obvious I was wrong. This is a fact, for
which there are a number of witnesses, so I hope that ISOC will just admit
it, and will suggest how exactly they plan on working with the chapters in
the coming years, where joint efforts will be needed. Because ISOC, as the
representative of the technical community, can bring only one voice to the
international arena, while the chapters can bring dozens.

best,
veni



On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Eduardo Diaz
<eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>wrote:

> Veni:
>
> The score result: 50% for goods and 50% for no goods (approximately). This
> is like when the weather person does not know if it is going to rain.
> They usually say that  "there is a 50% chance of raining today".  With this
> I mean to say that at this point things can go either way: more no goods or
> more goods. Again, time will tell. We have to be attentive.
>
> Thanks for the summary. It helps in putting them under a macro perspective.
>
> -ed
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dear all,
>> Based on today's discussion, and last few months of talks I have had with
>> folks from the ISOC chapter community, here is a brief view on what's
>> happening, what's good, and what - not so good. Order is random.
>>
>> 1. ISOC is hiring a lot of people, and the ones that know them claim they
>> are really very good people. *This is good.*
>> 2. We are being told ISOC is considering changing their by-laws; we have
>> not been approached with any details for opinion or at list informed about
>> these changes. *Not so good.*
>> 3. ISOC is suggesting to the chapters to engage in negotiations on a
>> draft Letter of Affiliation, which was already seriously criticized by many
>> on and off the list. *Not good. *
>> 4. ISOC is running some projects, of which the chapters are not being
>> informed, that include following the ITU. We have learned that funding for
>> these projects does not come (only) from ISOC's funds. *Not good.*
>> 5. ISOC is hiring and allocating more people to follow the ITU
>> developments, who report back to chapters. *Good.*
>> 6. The chapters continue to feel isolated from the decision-making at
>> ISOC, even when these decisions concern chapters and chapter members (just
>> one example - INET-2012). *Not good.*
>> 7. ISOC is representing the technical community within the IGF/ITU
>> context. *Good*.
>> 8. ISOC does not represent civil society - for an independent observer it
>> is an organization, which is heavily influence by its organizational
>> members (companies), not by individual members or chapters. *Good and
>> not so good*.
>> This point needs clarification - it's good that ISOC does not represent
>> civil society - there are many, who claim that, but ISOC is unique as the
>> home of the IETF. But it is not good that ISOC would not encourage and
>> empower its chapters to participate at the IGF/ITU meetings, as they are
>> indeed the ones, representing the civil society in their respected
>> countries.
>>
>> ISOC's policies towards the chapter have not improved dramatically, as
>> the expectations were last year at this time. *Not good.*
>>
>> ISOC need to start treating the chapters as equal partners, who are
>> contributing to ISOC more than they are getting from it. ISOC could
>> coordinate with chapters its messages, policies and positions, so that it
>> is not caught in a situation like this morning. And while we dealt with
>> this one nicely, with many people writing what they know of Paul, in the
>> coming months such disruption of normal communication may cause much bigger
>> issues, than just an exchange of emails within the chapters' list.
>> The issues that we are going to deal with in the coming two years are too
>> serious to not pay attention to details like relations with a substantial
>> part of ISOC, the chapters.
>>
>> I'd like to urge ISOC's leadership to not simply *address *the issue,
>> but require *an immediate - and positive! - change in the attitude from
>> ISOC HQ towards the chapters*.
>> This is going to be good for the chapters, good for ISOC, and good for
>> the Internet.
>> We are facing a crucial time on the international arena, and it is wise
>> to stay focused on the main topic, rather than waste time on fixing
>> relationship, which should have been fixed long time ago. It is still not
>> too late, but if ISOC continues to behave with the superiority complex
>> towards the chapters, it is not difficult to envision more issues.
>> If there is an argument between ISOC and the chapters, the latter have
>> nothing to lose, but ISOC's legitimacy and confidence might suffer at time,
>> when they are needed more than before.
>>
>> We are looking forward to seeing the next positive steps from ISOC, and a
>> response to all the good suggestions that came in the last weeks by many
>> people on this list of how to move forward.
>>
>> Best,
>> Veni
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/21/2012 14:07, JOHN MORE wrote:
>>
>> I join my fellow ISOC-DC activist David Vyorst and others objecting to the sort of pre-judgement evidenced by some in this email thread. Paul is an excellent appointment and is part of ISOC's now working hard to create a partnership with the Chapters.
>>
>> Paul believes in the Chapters and will be an asset as we move forward.
>>
>> John More
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
> for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
> you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately
> by e-mail, and delete the original message.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120321/8e6ec5f6/attachment.htm>