[Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion

[Bernie Hoeneisen]

I share Hans-Peter's concerns (see below) and fully support his proposals 
for changes.

cheers,
  Bernie (Board Member of ISOC Switzerland Chapter)

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Technology


On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Hans Peter Dittler wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>