[Chapter-delegates] Resend of August 30 Request for Review and Comment on current proposed revisions to the By-laws

Sun Sep 16 13:13:15 PDT 2012

Dear Klaus,
thank you for important point -  LoA.
Let me ask all chapters - why we need LoA?
If we are ISOC members -  we accept ISOC ByLaws as members.
If ISOC chapter is an "agregator" of ISOC  members opinions on local
level, and  all Chapter participants are ISOC members - why they need to
sign additional LoA? like  ISOC members once more confirmed, that the
agree with ISOC ByLaws?
I think clarification of this point is very important.

Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM

On 9/14/2012 6:24 PM, Klaus Birkenbihl wrote:
> Dear *,
> 
> while supporting the arguments from others below as well as the
> respective mail from Hans Peter, I wonder if reiterating the
> same arguments again and again can move us forward.
> 
> We have to acknowledge that we are not discussing periods and commas,
> the discussion is about what kind of organization ISOC should be.
> Or to phrase it in another way: an organization that fights for
> openness, transparency and democracy on the Internet, how much
> internal democracy can it live and afford. With respect to this
> there is not much change on either side.
> 
> So very likely one could predict that at the end of the day
> the bylaws will look more or less (maybe with minor improvements)
> as they look today. Because the attempt of many of us to
> substantially change the direction on this level failed.
> 
> But the next step after this is still ahead. The LoA. And
> this is the time for chapters to defend their ideas. A LoA
> will not come into place without the consent of chapters.
> The LoA needs a minimum of consensus between chapters, staff and
> board. So there is need for a compromise. And I assume there
> would be a need to change the bylaws again to make such a
> compromise possible. (Don't tell us by-laws cannot be changed
> again!)
> 
> This said -dear board- it might be wise to review the ideas
> submitted by chapters carefully and take a spunky step towards
> more transparency, openness and democracy within ISOC.
> 
> Thanks, Klaus
> 
> 
> John More wrote on 2012-09-13 23:24:
>> Dear Eric and Others
>>
>> I will attempt to put down more detailed comments.  I am traveling in
>> Italy. However, in case I do not have a chance to do so, I would like
>> to support the general direction of Christopher's and Norbert's
>> comments.  The By-laws have moved some way from where they started,
>> but they fall short of recognizing the role, and providing proper
>> mechanisms for the involvement and treatment, of the Chapters (and
>> hence ordinary members). 
>>
>> The Internet Society has declared that it wants to substantially
>> increase its membership. The Society is working in involving Chapters
>> in the the Society's crucial efforts to preserve an "open" Internet in
>> the face of significant challenges.  But the By-laws still reflect too
>> much of the Society's earlier mindset.  The Chapters still are not
>> recognized as essential components of an activist Society.  For
>> example, there seems to be no provision for a Chapters annual meeting
>> equivalent to that of the Organizational members. There should be at
>> least five Chapter trustees to permit representation (and hence a
>> feeling of involvement) of the major geographic regions of the Society.
>>
>> Most essentially Chapters are not recognized as part of a structure
>> that should be on a par with the Organizational Members.  Chapters are
>> not provided protections.  Most importantly there should be a
>> recognition that not all Chapters can be organized the same way
>> because of local law.
>>
>> Since I have been involved in presenting comments and attending
>> meetings concerning the Bylaws, I know that there has been a lot of
>> hard work and good intentions put into this new draft.  But I fear it
>> still falls short and will only confirm the suspicions of some (not
>> me) that the Society is not serious about the crucial role that
>> Chapters have to play in organizing their members to support the
>> Society's positions and efforts.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> John H. More
>> Greater Washington DC Chapter
>>
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:57 PM, President of ISOC Cambodia
>> <president at isoc-kh.org <mailto:president at isoc-kh.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2012 11:32 PM, CW Mail wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Eric Burger:
>>>>
>>>> Thankyou. I appreciate the enormous amount of work that the Bylaws
>>>> Committee has recently undertaken and trust that the new Board of
>>>> Trustees will be able to draw this excercise to a successful
>>>> conclusion in the foreseeable future. I would however invite the
>>>> Committee and the Board to 'go the extra mile' to accommodate the
>>>> practical consequences of the avowed objective of enhancing the
>>>> participation and the interests of the Chapters in the Internet
>>>> Society as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> 1. In Article IV the Chapters are still not recognised as Members,
>>>> on a par with Organisational Members. For some of us this is a line
>>>> in the sand. We cannot continue to try and mobilise our members if
>>>> our Chapters are still treated in the formal texts as second class
>>>> citizens.
>>>>
>>> The draft for new Bylaws for the Internet Society have been
>>> discussed since months by e-mail and in webinars. It is
>>> disappointing to see that the fundamental question about the role
>>> and place of the Chapters, discussed at that time, seems to be still
>>> lost. Some of the related “deafening silence” had been deplored at
>>> that time – but it seems without much response. We are repeating...
>>>
>>> This problem is not only a question of Bylaw formulations, it shows
>>> up in public announcements, like in the following from 22 August
>>> 2012: [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Welcomes Sofie Maddens
>>> as Senior Director of Global Services, which says:
>>>
>>> “The Internet Society is a global organization, at the heart of
>>> which are our Regional Bureaus,” said Walda Roseman, Chief Operating
>>> Officer of the Internet Society.”
>>>
>>> Am I the only one who thinks that at the heart of the Internet
>>> Society are its members?
>>>
>>> I admit that I do not know much about ISOC's Global Services, but
>>> they may be even further away from our reality - where we face
>>> challenges of a tightening environment for the freedom of
>>> communication - than the Asia Pacific Regional Office. From there,
>>> we got not ONE mail related to our predicament during two years,
>>> until recently, and then we were told that in a “Meet and greet”
>>> meeting, for which we had pleaded in extensive correspondence to
>>> discuss the difficult situation our Chapter is facing, that the
>>> meeting would be only “to enable me to use my powerpoint slides and
>>> present the global/APAC activities and plans, and no other.”
>>>
>>> “and no other”! This is an original quote.
>>>
>>> Are the future Bylaws of the Internet Society going to recognize the
>>> Chapters and their Members differently, or are we just an appendix
>>> to ISOC Global and the Regional Bureaus at the heart of this structure?
>>>
>>> Does the Internet Society Global have any interest in our small
>>> struggling Chapter, when even the /European/Chapters Coordinating
>>> Council <http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?tag=ga> had to raise the problem
>>> of not having received a response from staff after one year?
>>>
>>> Most of the other points Christopher Wilkinson is raising down here
>>> - some of them repeatedly - follow from the fundamental problem that
>>> the Internet Society - in its top structure - does not seem to see
>>> us as their genuine basis. So what can be the future?
>>>
>>>> 2. As I have pointed out on several previous occasions, the number
>>>> of Trustees elected by the Chapters is not sufficient: a minimum of
>>>> 5 seats would be necessary, with a guarantee of geographical diversity.
>>>>
>>>> Also I have come to understand throughout this process, during the
>>>> past two years, that the Board does not yet understand that the
>>>> primary role of many Chapters locally and in other contexts (e.g.
>>>> ICANN At Large) is as participants in Civil Society. From that
>>>> point of view a 50:50 representation on the Board of Chapters on
>>>> the one hand and the industry on the other hand would be more
>>>> appropriate - and would I believe be applauded internationally.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I appreciate that the functions of Chapters are now expressed in
>>>> facultative and illustrative manner. That is an improvement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, personally, I accept the need for 'standards of performance',
>>>> provided that they are _negotiated in concert with the Chapters
>>>> themselves._ That will be something for the Board to address in due
>>>> course in the context of the proposed exchange of Letters of
>>>> Affiliation. Meanwhile, it would be appreciated if the staff would
>>>> refrain from prescriptive statements about performance criteria.
>>> How is "standard performance" to be defined and measured? Only for
>>> Chapters? Is it standard performance that a Regional Officer
>>> announces and brings non-members to the "Meet and greet" who say
>>> that two hours ago they did not know what the Internet Society is -
>>> but the Regional Officer encourages them to become members - OK -
>>> and to stand as candidate two weeks later for Chapter leadership? -
>>> Is it standard procedure that I learn from a mailing list that the
>>> Regional Office is "working within the government to provide more
>>> support and knowledge" (relating to Cambodia) - and when expressing
>>> my surprise and ask what it is - I am still without an answer. Who
>>> is monitoring performance over what?
>>>>
>>>> 4. There is still no provision for a 'special meeting' (aka
>>>> Advisory Committee) for Chapter members, on a par with
>>>> Organisational members.
>>>>
>>> There is - as the experience of the /European/Chapters Coordinating
>>> Council shows, <http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?tag=ga> no real standard
>>> channel to regularly discuss policy.
>>> <http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?tag=ga>
>>>>
>>>> 5. There is still no overarching statement (preferably in Article
>>>> 1) as to the objectives of the ISOC Association. This would be
>>>> useful, particularly if it clearly specified the civil society
>>>> dimension of the work of the Internet Society.
>>>>
>>> Very important - as the international background for us - while we
>>> still struggle to get locally registered "as a non-profit
>>> organization under the laws of Cambodia," as our Bylaws say, Bylaws
>>> that have been "approved by the Internet Society (International)"
>>> before they could be presented to our members for a vote.
>>>>
>>>> memberRegards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Christopher, and greetings to all Chapter colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>> Norbert
>>> -- 
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> President - ISOC Cambodia Chapter
>>> president at isoc-kh.org
>>> http://www.isoc-kh.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 549 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120917/3655b1c8/attachment.asc>