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

Thu Mar 22 05:10:55 PDT 2012

Veni and *,

excellent analysis. I'd like to add a few observations. And resolving
these by hiring more and more people will probably not work.

I'm far from having a complete picture of ISOC but by picking 3 of
the issues/discussions of the last months (2 of them with a broad
public visibility) and the way how they were (not) resolved make me
worry.

Here my selection:
 - Program for INET 2012
 - http://www.internetsociety.org
 - LoA

INET 2012: we had the discussion before. The concern: there was no
investment in setting-up a program with participation from
the membership/community. Instead rather generic topics and some
celebrities were presented. I don't think there is a need to reiterate.
(Btw. did I miss the denouncement of Mme. Hu? At least she cannot
be found on the speakers list anymore.)

http://www.internetsociety.org. It was agreed that the new Web site
had quite a few deficits. The Web site is out now for more than 3
month and not even smallish issues have been resolved. (Unfortunately
the INET 2012 pages made it much worse istaed of improving.) I
had some chats with Dan about it and he welcomed my comments. But
the site still:
 - is an accessibility disaster
 - poorly implements internationalization
 - has a lot of errors.
Even worse: there isn't a tool that allows tracking the problems.
So I had to put-up the issue list on my private web-side. (Feel free
to visit and send me additional observations).
http://klaus-birkenbihl.de/isoc-website-issues.html
Please keep in mind: we are not talking about an association of
rabbit raisers that doesn't care much about its web site - we talk
about the Internet Society that has a mission.

LoA: I'll send a separate mail on this one. (I sent one after
the first Webinars, but only to the participants till then -
I'll reiterate it respecting some comments I got so far). The
main deficits of the LoA as it is today:
 - it charges chapters to do recruiting as one of their main
   roles. (Chapters as unpaid regional sales Offices.)
 - it widely ignores the role of Chapters as assemblies of
   regional members
 - it barely shows any balance between charges and benefits
 - it brazenly interferes with matters that are at the internal
   disposition of chapters (like terms of presidents and such)

Shouldn't we wonder about an organization that
 - carelessly neglects the need to prepare the content for
   its most important event of the year?
 - claims to promote an "Internet for Everyone" while not
   showing any visible effort or progress to make its Website
   accessible and international? (Not mentioning the pitiful
   lack of technical quality)
 - treats its regional members circles with charges for
   marketing and recruiting while refusing them any significant
   influence?

This leaves us with a few more questions:
Were there more important topics than those mentioned above
that required ISOC's full attention - not allowing to invest enough
in these? Which ones? Is ISOC staff under-manned, under-payed ...?
Do we suffer from a management problem? Should we, the members
be concerned? Is the BOT worried? Maybe our chapter selected
BOT members should let us know?

Best,
Klaus

Veni Markovski wrote on 2012-03-21 21:23:
> 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

-- 
Klaus Birkenbihl
Internet Society German Chapter e.V. (ISOC.DE)
c/o ict-Media GmbH
http://www.isoc.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Klaus_Birkenbihl.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 293 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120322/01557a70/attachment.vcf>