[Chapter-delegates] LoA for good or bad?

[Veni Markovski]

John,
The problem is that these "30,000" have no rights = they don't vote, 
because they don't pay membership fee. This is perfectly fine with me, 
but we should just not accept that they can vote for the board.
The only ones voting are the org members (50 % of the board), chapters 
(25 %), and the IAB (25 %). For those of you, who don't know, the IAB is 
a committee of the IETF (for which, btw ISOC serves as its legal home, 
see rfc 2031).

/Today, the IAB consists of thirteen members. Of these, six are 
nominated each year by a nominating committee drawn from the Internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF) for a two year term. This process is 
described in RFC 2727. The slate of nominees is then approved by the 
Board of Trustees of the Internet Society. The thirteenth member of the 
IAB is the IETF Chair. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) chair 
serves as an ex-officio member but cannot vote. Finally, the IAB has a 
volunteer Executive Director. /


So, it would be fair to say that technical community elects 75 % of the 
Board of ISOC, while the rest (civil society, etc.) elect only 1/4. 
While it was OK when the companies were paying the bills, today probably 
90%+ of the ISOC budget comes from PIR, which means that these companies 
should really not be in the position to decide which direction ISOC 
goes. It is because of that precise fact that there are issues with the 
chapters, as we have seen that through the years. Chapters care about 
the end-users, about spreading the Internet in their countries, etc., 
etc. ISOC's organizational membership understand its role as to fund the 
RFC editor, and help the IETF in their work, and therefore we have 
constantly arguments - on this list and off it.

Only a serious change in the by-laws, and serious change in the 
relations with the chapters, including increase of number of 
chapter-elected Trustees and decreasing the number of organizations' 
elected Trustees, or going to a completely different scheme of electing 
the Trustees might make ISOC the organization that it always wanted to 
be (and was for the first few years of its existence) - leading the 
Internet revolution, helping developing countries, spreading knowledge 
and know-how on Internet technologies. And - yes! - supporting the IETF 
and the RFC editors.

That is something we have discussed through the years, and so far I have 
not heard a serious argument against it. Usually the argument is, "but 
why, what is that you, chapters, don't like in the current model?" or 
similar. Clearly we like some parts of it - the technical work, but we 
find issues in the treatment of chapters and members, too, which have 
not been addressed at all.

The LoA discussion is yet another example that ISOC HQ doesn't listen to 
the chapters. It keeps on organizing the webinars, regardless of the 
many objections, and regardless of the appeal by many to stop wasting 
the time, and put the horse in front of the cart.

best,
veni

On 3/23/2012 10:42, John More wrote:
> Dear Klaus
>
> Thanks for your helpful analysis.  Your contributions are always 
> throughout through.
>
> I fear, however, you have created an either-or scenario that does not 
> really fit what is workable for a large international organization 
> that combines technical expertise, projects and training for expanding 
> and strengthening the Internet, and advocacy to protect the Internet 
> from governmental and institutional encroachment.
>
> A membership organization with 30,000 plus members scattered across 
> the globe cannot be run as if it were a local organization with 
> members involved in all aspects of the organization. There is no way 
> members can be involved in hiring staff or giving direction.  It also 
> is not possible for that number of members to set policy. Their 
> involvement comes from voting, communicating, supporting financially. 
>  They can vote with their feet.  They can propose alternate slates of 
> candidates for the Board.  They can and should e asked to participate 
> in international/national campaigns to support ISOC's mission and 
> principals and in local initiatives.
>
> Successful international advocacy organizations have democratic 
> elections for their boards, usually with nominees presented by a 
> Nomination Committee and nominees by petition.  Once elected it is the 
> responsibility of the elected Board to provide overall direction, 
> including the hiring of top paid staff.  Their chapters play an 
> essential role in organizing members to be involved locally and to 
> mobilize for larger scale actions. The chapters absolutely need to 
> have paid staff who have been trained and vetted by the international 
> or by regional buros. All members should be paying something in order 
> to have an investment.  Members should be receiving regular 
> communications from both the international and the chapter.
>
> Finally there really should be a body representing the Chapters, not 
> just the trustees. Possibly Advisory with some teeth in matters 
> directly affecting chapters.
>
> Finally the LoA should, and I think, is being treated as a work in 
> progress.  However, until the basic structure of ISOC, the Chapters 
> and the general membership is decided through the revision of the 
> Bylaws, the LoA cannot be made final.
>
> Meanwhile, the ongoing work of strengthening the chapters and 
> improving their relationship with the Society needs to continue.
>
> The above is based on my many years involvement with advocacy groups 
> (including preparing bylaws and application for tax exempt status), 
> and monitoring ISOC communications, especially the ongoing discussions 
> of chapter status.
>
> John More
>
>
>
> John More
> Treasurer
> Greater Washington DC Chapter
>    of the Internet Society
> jmisoc_dc at me.com <mailto:jmisoc_dc at me.com>
>
> SCANNED BY NORTON ANTI-VIRUS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Klaus Birkenbihl wrote:
>
>> 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/
>> <Klaus_Birkenbihl.vcf>_______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120323/7c308701/attachment.htm>