[Chapter-delegates] LoA for good or bad?

Fri Mar 23 04:07:18 PDT 2012

Hi all,

I'd like to give my perspective on LoA as I announced in my mail on policy
yesterday.

Let me say that I don't think there is anything wrong with the LoA as it
is, if you share the underlaying model for chapters. The issue is that
some people/chapters follow a different model and this can of cause
imply different rules and policies.

So I tried to reverse engineered the LoA and Peter's slides as they are
today to figure out characteristics of the underlying model. Find my
first mail on this below to read some details of the findings.

The underlying model of any LoA that we saw so far is:
 - ISOC has HQ that lead and manage the organization
 - ISOC has büros that extent HQ to regions
 - within regions there are chapters on national level or below to
   support this work - managed by the büros.

The LoA discussion based on this model was on:
 - how to motivate chapters. Problem: there is no payment so what
   should be the incentive for their effort
 - how to measure performance of chapters
 - how to manage chapters that they follow the corporate policies
   and missions

If we accept this model the resulting LoA is still a bit unbalanced
but these are minor issues.

Some of the chapter delegates plead to discuss the LoA once the new
bylaws are in place. Right! Cause the bylaws should define the
principles on how the organization is lead. I sincerely hope that
the new bylaws reflect another model of the organization. A bit
like this:
 - ISOC is lead by its membership
 - ISOC membership selects a board to act on its behalf
 - ISOC membership appoints staff to do the operations
 - the role of the staff is (a.o.)
   - implement decisions of the membership/board
   - report to board and membership and make recommendations
   - set-up and manage an infrastructure for operations and
     communications
   - support members activities that are in line with the
     goals of the organization

Where are chapters in this model? Chapters are subgroups of members.
They are not an unpaid extension of the staff. The membership may
set some rules:
 - to ensure activities of chapters follow the mission of the
   organization
 - how to support activities of chapters
This said: chapters - unless explicitly entitled- of cause never
speak on behalf of the organization but can express opinions as
long as these follow the principles of the organization.

There are a few things that should remain in place. In order to
allow exchange and co-operation between chapters there should
be a dedicated part of the staff to support this. Chapter workshops
are an important part of it - as long as the "how to recruit a
more professional door to door sales force and train them properly"
part is avoided.

Beside that there are indicators for a certain amount of distrust
towards chapters. (This may be justified - given the "provide your
email to become a member for free" application that leaves room
for fraud). Just to name one of the indicators: ISOC discloses any
informations about corporate members from chapters - and does
not foresee corporate memberships within chapters - though these
exist. Let's work to change this - the trust issue and the
integration of corporate ISOC members into regional structures.

Below my first position statement on the LoA. A bit more on the
detail but in line with what I wrote here. Apologies to those
who received it before.

Best, Klaus

> Hi Anne,
> 
> being one of those to deliver here my answer.
> 
> Unfortunately its not the wording is rather the content of the LoA
> Peter's slides don't improve it. Lets look at the slide 9:
>  - ISOC staff will provide some tools to ease work for ISOC (which
>    should not considered as a benefit from ISOC to chapters but
>    rather as working in ISOC's best interest).
>  - communication channels and forums (just the same). If ISOC
>    membership maintains staff this is what you can expect.
>  - member database (yet another common tool)
>  - Use of brand and logo. Ha? This is owned by the membership.
>    And members are us (as we learned on previous slides).
>  - Guidance and support through ISOC's Bureaus ... thank you, we
>    will let you know when we need your help - and we are not spoiled
>    by getting too much attention.
> 
> So sorry to say this: there is no meat on it. The first four are
> rather common peas not worth mentioning in this context - and
> the last one is so unspecific that it could even be seen as a
> threat. And as if this has to be justified slide 13 lists the
> benefits for ISOC (from having chapters?):
>  - Positive presence at the local level
>  - Deep pool of expertise/feedback
>  - Strength in numbers
> 
> These all are side effects IMHO. ISOC Chapters in first place
> provide a room for local members to meet, discuss, communicate
> and address local topics and issues. In many chapters members
> pay a local fee and set up a legal entity to make this happen.
> Of course chapters have a lot in common. So communicating with
> each other, exchanging experience etc is a good thing to do.
> If this all is well done it might generate the other effects
> mentioned above.
> 
> ISOC membership has an interest that any organized subsets of it
> rather promote ISOC's goals than particular individual interests.
> So ISOC can phrase some expectations to ensure this - keeping in
> mind that chapters primarily are guided by their membership. The
> LoA chose to have
>  - a membership of at least 25 (seems OK for me, but I head its
>    might be too much in some parts of the world)
>  - activities (well this is in the chapters own interest)
>  - communications - dito
>  - Governance (IMHO it should be completely up to the chapters
>    and its bylaws to define the rules. As long as it follows
>    ISOC's vision, mission. As far as chapter data is concerned
>    it might be OK to require that the chapter lets ISOC know
>    about its membership)
> 
> The dashboards as outlined for HQ as well as chapters is rather
> useless. To give you an example: it is without effect to downgrade
> the member database as long as we don't use means to improve it.
> For now the tracker seems to be ignored by everyone.
> There is one slide on HQ dashboard seven on the chapters dashboard.
> The chapter dashboard as outlined is boldness pure. No chapter
> should allow to publish its data in the way outlined there and
> take any means to avoid it.
> As an ISOC member it makes me angry that ISOC spends money, effort
> and excellence to develop such nonsense while our new website is
> suffering from severe quality issues since it was published 3 month
> ago without much progress.
> 
> The Chapters guide should be seen as just another helpful tool to
> organize. It should be left-up to chapters to select what makes
> sense for them.
> 
> So what about the LoA now? For ISOC Germany I assume we don't need any.
> 
> If you want to do chapters a favor start with some rules from ISOC
> saying things like:
> 
>   we will support <activities> by <kind of support> and here is how
>   you can apply <some form> answer is guarateed within < n<4 > weeks
> 
> This would be a start and give chapters a base for planning. I hear
> others (esp. Veni) plea for more chapter influence within ISOC.
> Would not be my focus so much. I'd rather go for more members power.
> But this said: isn't it ridiculous that chapters have to register
> their corporate members as individuals with AMS? Did you ever
> consider this insane? And why don't ISOC provide a substantial
> share of the local corporate members fee to chapters who work
> in their region - covering their Internet concerns too? Why don't we
> even get a database excerpt for corporate members in our region?
> Who represents the company to ISOC? Would be very helpful in
> acquiring sponsoring means. IS there a need to protect corporate
> members from their chapters?
> 
> You see ISOC has quite some means to better meet chapter's
> expectations (admitting that other chapters might have other
> requirements) and show more cooperation and support. But a
> LoA -as the one proposed- is not helpful by any means.
> 
> Best, Klaus

-- 
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/20120323/87ea009b/attachment.vcf>