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

CW Mail mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sun Sep 16 21:17:50 PDT 2012 

Good morning:

I agree that the "Letter of Affiliation" is not _necessary_.

I proposed (rather a long time ago) an "exchange of Letters" in order  
to ensure that the 'contractual' aspects of the original staff  
proposal would be abandoned - which they were, I think.

However, at that time we were also dealing with an "ISOC pre-approved"  
staff proposal,  that the ECC Bylaws should include among our Purposes:
"-To encourage and provide support to Chapters in meeting the minimum  
performance standards outlined in the Letter of Affiliation".
Needless to say, that received negligible support, not least because  
there are no agreed LoAs.

Also, Anne Lord's parting shot included the reflection that the  
principle of the LoA would "endure".

Make of this what you will; at least we do not have LoA in the current  
proposal for the ISOC Bylaws. Whether "performance standards" is  
acceptable depends on what they are and how they are determined.
Clearly they could not be uniform, world-wide.  e.g. one interesting  
performance standard would be to encourage/require Chapters to conduct  
their business and website in local language, in the interests of  
outreach and multilingualism.

Just a though,

Best regards

CW






On 16 Sep 2012, at 22:13, Grigori Saghyan wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list