[Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion

[Borka Jerman Blazic]

I share the concerns of the colleagues already (veni, Peter and the others)
expressed on the list. An association  is usually association of members 
and they have
the major role in the organization life. All other bodies are set up for 
the members to channel
their views, projects and work. This  must be reflected in the Bylaws.  
So far it seems that
the all other parts of the organization are more important than the 
membership.

With regards,

borka



Dne 15.9.2012 9:06, pis(e 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120917/110e5086/attachment.htm>