[Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion

[Veni Markovski]

+1 for you, and +1 for Hans Peter.
However, dear colleagues,
I personally, and ISOC.bg active staffers, are quite busy in trying to 
deal with the ITU-threat to the Internet. We cannot possibly allocate 
time for this, and for the by-laws, neither can we send someone to deal 
with the by-laws alone.
I think the timing is pretty bad, and given all the remarks, I 
personally cannot even ask any of my colleagues to engage more.
We are running perhaps the second most important project in our history 
of 17 years of existence, and we want to reach some success. We are 
there alone, with only several supporting organizations (ISOC does not 
contribute to our project; they responded to our funding request last 
year that "it's too ambitious", or too much international, if I remember 
correctly;-) - sorry, but after Alejandro and Hans Peter's notes, I 
would just wait to see what the BoT will decide. Clearly there are more 
than two options, and it's their task, after all.

best,
veni

On 09/14/2012 20:05, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have re-read the draft several times and with different questions in 
> mind and have to agree with Hans Peter and others who have preceded me 
> in this list.
>
> The recognition of Chapters in the Bylaws is unsatisfactory.
>
> The definition of the Board's functions seems to me a weakness too. It 
> is mostly understood in the negative, i.e. by substracting the 
> President/CEO's functions from an imaginary whole. This may actually 
> be more a feature than a bug by leaving the President's function 
> delimited and the Board's functions undefined. At times ISOC needs the 
> Board to press for precise or extensive policy definitions and to go 
> far beyond peeking at the accounting. Strong policy statements, 
> support for Chapters or other members or groupings within the 
> organization, etc., are good examples here.
>
> That said, I'll come back to the Chapters sections and more, their 
> absence.
>
> One would think that at least some guidance about what Chapters are 
> and aren't, do or don't do, would be in the Bylaws. It certainly 
> should occur before we conclude - as we might - that we are all better 
> off with the Bylaws as they stand in the present draft. A general 
> statement of mutual responsibility may appear at least in the document 
> and discussion track of the Bylaws and thus help orient the 
> interactions as we build the LoA's and other instruments.
>
> Further: we have elected three Trustees from the Chapter vote. We have 
> heard from Narelle and Rudi from time to time. It would be very 
> valuable if at least one of you could help us with a summary of how 
> you got to the conclusion that the present draft is fine. An 
> appearance from Monsieur Aina would also be appreciated, esp. if we 
> consider that we are well into his term and some show of 
> accountability would be a signal of what the relation between Chapters 
> and the rest of the organization is going to be in a consequence of 
> his contributions as a Trustee.
>
> Certainly we have a great subject for the upcoming meeting of Chapter 
> leaders and members in Toronto about a month from now. Jacek, I don't 
> think that we need to get creative about the agenda of that meeting!!
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> ! !! !!! !!!!
> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
>
> SMS +525541444475
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Desde:* chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org 
> [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Hans Peter 
> Dittler [dittler at braintec-consult.de]
> *Enviado el:* viernes, 14 de septiembre de 2012 17:38
> *Hasta:* Chapter Delegates (chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org)
> *Asunto:* [Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion
>
> Hello all,
>
> (forgot to copy to chapter delegates when send on Friday)
>
> When receiving the email from Eric and later from Ted about the 
> revised version of the proposed bylaws changes I had big hopes for 
> substantial progress.
>
> I am sure that much effort went into the update so far and when 
> talking to Eric and Ted face to face (and everybody else involved) I 
> got the impression of a lot of understanding and acceptance of the 
> proposals made earlier this year from members, chapters and org-members.
>
> When reading the revised proposal much of the anticipation and hope 
> dissolved away into nothing.
>
> Yes - there was substantial change in some details --
>
> Chapters are for example now clearly recognized -
>
> But the main line and direction is still the same.
>
> If you look simply at the text there is a severe imbalance
>
> 7 pages about the board of trustees
>
> 2 pages about org members
>
> 1/2 page about chapters
>
> Less than 1/2 page about individual members
>
> 6 pages about officers (which could be added to the board part)
>
> Are members and chapters really so much less important than the board 
> and the officers?
>
> Or are the rules for them so much simpler?
>
> Part of it might be due to the fact that most of the rules for 
> chapters and members are pushed to different papers (letter of 
> affiliation) and left to later decisions of staff and board.
>
> This gives a feeling of uncertainty -- you do not know what is coming 
> up on you from the bylaws.
>
> I would expect that orgs, members and chapters should find as much 
> consideration in the bylaws as staff and officers.
>
> It is somehow a feeling of second class or less importance.
>
> Again I am not sure if this can be repaired by changing a few words in 
> the bylaws. I am more and more convinced that a deeper change needs to 
> happen.
>
> I wish this discussion would be a real discussion where chapters, orgs 
> and members would be part on equal level and not only asked for input 
> every 4 months or so.
>
> Especially when this input is to a large extend only put into some 
> storage after being read by the people tasked to do the revisions.
>
> A few round tables or some discussion would really make the whole 
> process more transparent and more trustworthy.
>
> I propose a much more direct and open dialogue inviting and including 
> all parties that make up the Internet Society.
>
> Please include all of us -- we want to contribute and share.
>
> I attach my points from May , as most of them are not reflected in the 
> current text or answered by some communication.
>
> Summary of remarks from first letter in May 2012
>
> Global remarks:
>
> Still open:
>
> The discussion about the update of the bylaws has sparked a lot of 
> talk about the overall situation of chapters and members inside 
> Internet Society.
>
> I believe it would be a good idea to start a broader discussion about 
> the role of individual members, chapters and organizational members.
>
> Still open:
>
> There seems to be quite a gap between what some individuals, some 
> chapters and some org-members expect from their role inside Internet 
> Society and what is echoed from staff.
>
> The written as well as the proposed text in the bylaws often describes 
> even another different scenario.
>
> There is also quite a gap in many areas between what chapters and 
> members expect from staff and what staff (constrained by personal or 
> budget limits) is able to deliver or is allowed to deliver.
>
> Still open:
>
> I heard a strong request from several sides to re-think the chosen 
> understanding of being "Cause-based".
>
> We should have the possibility to discuss different models, where 
> membership, chapters and org-members play a more visible and more 
> influencing role in the creation and supervision of the long-term 
> goals of the Internet Society.
>
> Perhaps slight changes in the current model would be sufficient to 
> improve the overall situation a lot.
>
> More specific remarks to the proposed bylaws:
>
> Still mostly open:
>
> I understand and concur fully with the principle guideline to make 
> bylaws as slim as possible to avoid the high effort and legal cost 
> needed on revision.
>
> At the same time I see the bylaws as something which defines centrally 
>  large parts of the board, chapter, member and org-member and staff 
> roles and responsibilities.
>
> If central parts of the responsibilities or role descriptions are 
> moved to other documents (example for chapters: Society's standards of 
> performance), these additional documents should listed explicitly in 
> the bylaws and their content and the change of it bound in the bylaws 
> to a rather high level of control and revision, like a 2/3 majority 
> vote of the board or similar. None of these central definitions should 
> be changeable unilaterally by a simple staff decision.
>
> Still mostly open:
>
> Chapters, members and org-members were praised high as central parts 
> of the Internet Society on several occasions during the Inet in 
> Geneva. Also the central role of the IETF was mentioned over and over.
>
> I would propose to mention those central aspects of the Internet 
> Society also in the first paragraph of the bylaws side by side to the 
> one sentence about the mission.
>
> Chapters:
>
> Still open:
>
> Even if the bylaws now recognize chapters as their own entity and the 
> selection of board members is on the same level for IETF, org-members 
> and chapters, there is still some imbalance.
>
> The org-members shall have a yearly assembly -- why nothing comparable 
> for chapters?
>
> Still open:
>
> As the actions of staff are under final supervision by the board and 
> neither chapters nor members have any channel of direct input to the 
> board, there should be a definition of such a channel in the bylaws. 
> Possibilities are:
>
> -an appeal-channel for staff actions or decisions on members or chapters
>
> -the possibility for members, chapters and org-members to request the 
> attention of the board by putting some item on the agenda of the next 
> board meeting
>
> Mostly closed:
>
> Several chapters have org-members as local members. This conflicts 
> with the proposed text.
>
> Members:
>
> Still mostly open:
>
> The rights and possibilities of members seem to be very limited in the 
> current text.
>
> As all definitions about membership levels and fees for individual or 
> organizational members have now been removed from the bylaws, I would 
> propose again that these rules should be moved to documents 
>  explicitly listed in the bylaws and their content and the change of 
> it bound in the bylaws to a rather high level of control and revision, 
> like a 2/3 majority vote of the board or similar. None of these 
> definitions of membership levels should be changeable by a simple 
> staff decision.
>
> Hans Peter Dittler
>
> Member of the board
>
> ISOC.DE
>
> Internet Society German Chapter e.V.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120914/c45b5d42/attachment.htm>