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

[Veni Markovski]

Narelle, see comments below.

First of all - thank you for your email. I know how you feel, trust me 
on that - been there, done that.

On 3/22/2012 05:34, Narelle Clark wrote:
> It is great. We are building a really strong team that is 
> geographically and culturally diverse with a tremendous range of 
> expertise. It makes us stronger and more effective every day.
>> 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.*
> ISOC indeed is still reviewing its bylaws. Frankly, the bylaws are broken.
> They do not match the organisation as it does and should operate. This has

The by-laws were built for an organization that had members, who voted. 
Then were changed for an organization, which had to, basically, sell 
board seats to companies, so that it will not go bankrupt. Today it's a 
$ 40 M / year organization, 60+ staff, which requires totally different 
by-laws.

> The next phase of the communications has to happen soon, and I want to
> know how that best happens.
>
> What path should that follow?
> Webex?
> INET session?

I cannot agree with you for an INET session to discuss by-laws changes. 
If ISOC was having conferences regularly, with broad membership 
participation - yes, but INET, which is supposed to be more of a 
show-event? No.

> We need to understand the real issues here. There needs to be some 
> form of agreement between the Society as an entity and its parts as to 
> what it means to be affiliated. This is what that Letter is to do. We 
> can evolve it, massage it, and even transform it, but in essence it 
> needs to be a bottom line statement of what it means to be affiliated. 
> If it doesn't then we can easily have groups claiming to be supporting 
> our ideals for an open, affordable, accessible, ubiquitous Internet 
> that REALLY AREN'T and NEVER will be. The criticisms of the first 
> drafts have been taken on board. 

The LoA is not a "form of agreement". It is logical to say that if 
there's a LoA with the chapters, what's the text of LoA with the 
organizational members? Would they agree to follow ISOC's principles? Or 
would they, because they pay membership fee, rather want ISOC to follow 
their principles? Interesting idea, what do you say;-?
There should be an exchange of letters, which state what both sides 
agree upon. It should not be a directive from the top to the bottom. 
Neither ISOC is the top, nor the chapters - the bottom.

>> 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.*
> Feel free to fully inform me about this off list. I am happy to follow up.

Let's rather hear ISOC saying what exactly are doing; this should not be 
secret, and plus, it will be reflected in the 990 form anyway.

>> 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.*
> INET 2012 is a great looking conference and the staff are working their
> backsides off to make this as successful as possible. It is coming
> together more slowly than we'd hoped, and chapters are being engaged.
> There is a whole day for chapters. Yes, there could be more. Yes, it could
> be better.

Narelle, you may have missed the discussion about the paid 
participation? INET is not a local, ISOC-only event. It seems to be 
bigger. One more reasons chapters expressed concern with the speakers at 
the opening panel, btw.

> ISOC wants the input and collaboration of these people - the reason ISOC
> is such a success is because it manages to successfully use (indeed
> leverage!) the strengths of its membership: chapters, organisations AND
> individuals!

Allow me to disagree on the use of present tense. ISOC cannot claim it 
is "such a success", because if it does, then it has turned into a 
quasi-UN body, where every meeting is either "successful" or "very 
successful". If ISOC believes they do not make mistakes, then it will 
look as if it has turned into some kind of a religion. ISOC has a lot to 
do, in order to "successfully use" the chapters, IMHO.

> 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*.
> I'm not convinced I agree it is true that the organisations have a 'heavy'
> influence. From where I sit, looking across both the organisational and
> chapter forums, there are strengths and weaknesses in both.

We have raised that question - you cannot be seriously trying to 
persuade us (and yourself!) that the organizational members, which  
elect half of the Board can compare with the civil society, electing 
only 3 board members (25 %). Not forgetting that the rest 25 % are also 
elected by the technical community, which is not civil society, or members.

> 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.
> Yup, I think we agree. [Though I can't see where ISOC has discouraged
> people from participating in IGF meetings? My chapter is probably doing
> the opposite.]

I wrote "encourage and empower" at IGF/ITU meetings.

>> ISOC's policies towards the chapter have not improved dramatically, as
>> the expectations were last year at this time. *Not good.*
> Please write to me off list on more specific terms - I see tireless
> Regional Bureau people and Chapter Liaison folk who are outstanding. And
> more.

Yes, the people are great - I wrote you earlier, and you agreed above. 
But I write about the ISOC policies towards the chapters. Just take a 
look at this mailing list around Markus', Jacek's or Walda's appointments.

> I'm hoping you will be pleasantly surprised by the aspects of the 
> bylaws that are overdue for a change... and I trust you will see that 
> chapter representation in that discussion has been solid! 

I am already scared to think what we will face.

> All the very best, and thank you Veni for keeping us honest! Narelle 

Oh, no, I am not Fox News - they are the ones, who claim they keep the 
politicians honest. I have spent five years on the Board of Trustees, 
and have contributed to the development of the Internet in my country, 
and beyond - I've earned my right to be critical of the organization's 
policies, and especially when I see that these policies often are at the 
expense of the chapters. I am sure you will find a lot of people 
speaking in defense of the chapters, but hardly anyone more passionate 
and with more experience than me. That's why instead of waiting for ISOC 
to start doing something, we at ISOC Bulgaria have moved quietly and 
with determination that international Internet regulation requires us to 
bring our experience - without the support of ISOC - on the table, and 
we have asked other chapters to join us.

What's happening in today's world, with regards to Internet regulation, 
is not a game, it's a cruel reality, and I don't think we, who are among 
the pioneers of the Internet, have the privilege to stay on the side 
lines, and just pretend that nothing is happening, or what is happening 
does not concern us. *I am pleased to see that many chapters' leaders 
care about the way the Internet will move, and that they don't want to 
see increased regulation and control*. I am sure that ISOC is aligned 
with the chapters in this, but their desire to stay "above" things is 
not serving well the global Internet community, and the chapters.

best,
Veni

Veni
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120322/68361216/attachment.htm>