[Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion

[CW Mail]

+1	CW


On 18 Sep 2012, at 00:11, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

> Alain,
>
> I thought Chris Wilkinson's email said everything but I will add  
> that maybe Chapters representatives, by this advanced stage, not  
> only expect to be heard but also to find out whether you have any  
> views on the matters in discussion, and what they are.
>
> But then, maybe not.
>
> 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 ALAIN AINA [aalain at trstech.net]
> Enviado el: lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2012 09:41
> Hasta: Chapter Delegates (chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org)
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion
>
> Alejandro,
>
> Nothing better than opening up to the chapter delegates for comments  
> to help improve the draft. This phase of the bylaws revision was  
> expected to generate  discussions. Many important issues have been  
> raised here, which will definitely help. Chapters recognition in the  
> bylaws and the related LoA discussion should be given  the right  
> analysis and response among other things. We will make sure that   
> all views are heard and taking into consideration as much as   
> possible.
>
>
> I will not be in TORONTO  during  the chapter delegates meeting, but  
> will be remote.
>
> --Alain
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> thanks for this great message. I fully agree with your  
>> considerations.
>>
>> In particular I would note that it is in each Chapter's interest  
>> that the standards of performance not be too relaxed, which is a  
>> possible caveat from other parts of the Society and the Bylaws  
>> drafters. None of us does well if we can be said to be in the  
>> company of slackers. Mechanisms exist to stimulate cooperation to  
>> higher means instead of a descent to the lowest common denominator.  
>> Peer review and peer pressure can work wonders in the right  
>> structure and with the right incentives.
>>
>> Maybe we should triage the points made till now so that we can  
>> group them according to priority and hierarchy, and prepare the  
>> most salient ones for discussion in Toronto among those able to  
>> attend physically or remotely.
>>
>> Eric, in your capacity as head of the Bylaws committee; and  
>> Narelle, Rudi, and Monsieur Aina, as chapter-elected Trustees, can  
>> we count on you managing the schedule of the Bylaws review to allow  
>> time for this discussion? Can we call you into it? Can we think you  
>> will in turn invite other Trustees as well?
>>
>> This is NOT about creating a confrontation, though structurally  
>> there may be one by design, but about creating a dialectic in which  
>> differences - structural or of opinion - and collaboration drive to  
>> a result all accept and which has planted in it the right seeds for  
>> evolution.
>>
>> 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: John More [morej1 at mac.com]
>> Enviado el: sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2012 16:35
>> Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
>> CC: Hans Peter Dittler; Markovski Veni; Chapter Delegates (chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org 
>> )
>> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] my input to the bylaws discussion
>>
>> Dear Alejandro
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts.  Because I appreciate their tenor and  
>> direction, I am attaching my more detailed comments to your email.  
>> But I note that many others have submitted similar comments that  
>> deserve to be considered by the Bylaws Committee.
>>
>> John More
>> Greater Washington DC Chapter
>>    of the Internet Society
>>
>> Comments on ISOC Draft Bylaws
>>
>>
>> 1.             Since trustees are elected by different groups –  
>> Organizational Members, Chapters, IETF and the Board, it would be  
>> possible for representatives of the same organizational member to  
>> be elected trustee. Should there be a restriction on more than one  
>> trustee coming from the same organizational member?
>>
>> 2.             If there is to be an Advisory Council of  
>> Organizational Members, the Chapters should also have an Advisory  
>> Council or some other express mechanism for presenting Chapters’  
>> views to the Board.  The Society should expressly recognize that  
>> “organized people” (organized through the Chapter structure) is  
>> politically important for the Society, not just “organized money”  
>> through the Organizational Members.
>>
>> The Chapters could be given the same right as expressed in the  
>> Comments as an alternative:
>>
>> “Chapters shall, as a group and organized in a manner of their  
>> choosing and approved by the Board of Trustees, have the right to  
>> advise the Board of Trustees and President on matters of importance  
>> to the Chapters.”
>>
>> It is notable that the Bylaws Committee’s comments do not include  
>> an exhortation to the Chapters asking them to provide comments that  
>> the language of the Bylaws adequately addresses the Chapter’s  
>> concerns.
>>
>> 3.             The proposed Bylaws provide for a determination that  
>> a Chapter meet the Society’s “standards of performance” for it to  
>> have a right to vote on Trustees. It would seem only fair (and also  
>> prudent) that Organizational Members meet some standard other than  
>> paying dues for a right to vote and send members.  What if an  
>> Organizational Member is not “furthering the Internet Society’s  
>> mission and principles”.
>>
>> 4.             Article IV. The definition of Chapters seems  
>> inadequate.  Surely they are more than “groups”.  Rather they  
>> should be “membership organizations formed by ISOC individual  
>> members pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction of their  
>> formation”. This formulation recognizes that local law may require  
>> variations.
>>
>> 5.             “Standards of performance” is a concept that has  
>> caused concern among Chapter leaders.  As currently stated, it  
>> seems to be something that the staff of the Society will develop  
>> and impose.  This is an example of where an Advisory Council of the  
>> Chapters (which is missing), or a committee representing the  
>> Chapters should be involved in developing the standards.   
>> Accordingly, it might better read “standards of performance” to be  
>> developed in consultation with the Chapters (or Chapter leaders).  
>> Another suggestion is that it be made clearer in the Bylaws that  
>> the purpose of the ”standards” is that a Chapter shall be a real,  
>> functioning entity operating within the mission and principles of  
>> the Society, not just an empty entity with no active membership and  
>> no activities (i.e., a shadow Chapter or a Chapter with only a  
>> couple of spokespersons and no membership).
>>
>> 6.             No provision has been made for a fair process of  
>> determining when a Chapter is not meeting the standards of the  
>> Society, whether there is a mandated period for coming into  
>> compliance, and when and how a non-conforming Chapter is  
>> terminated, including in particular some sort of advisory role  
>> given to the other Chapters (or a committee representing them). I  
>> had previously recommended the provisions of the Sierra Club as a  
>> model.
>>
>> 7.             As previously noted there is no provision for an  
>> Advisory Council representing the Chapters or some other type of  
>> Assembly.  Even without providing for a council or assembly of  
>> Chapters, There should be a provision for annual or special  
>> meetings of the Chapters.  Meetings including Chapter leaders have  
>> been inspiring and important for generating a common purpose and  
>> promoting cooperation among Chapters.  They should be formalized in  
>> the Bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> John More
>> Treasurer
>> Greater Washington DC Chapter
>>    of the Internet Society
>> jmisoc_dc at me.com
>>
>> SCANNED BY NORTON ANTI-VIRUS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2012, at 2:05 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx 
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120918/f3f33671/attachment.htm>