[Chapter-delegates] Performance Standards, ISOC LoA

[Veni Markovski]

Hi.

The LoA model is not wrong. To call it wrong, means there's hope to fix it.
There's no model to "fit" all chapters, from all cultures. Recently, for 
example, in Russia, there's a law, that if you are getting money from 
abroad (ISOC grants!), then you must register as a "foreign agent". The 
word "agent" in Russian has a very negative meaning - i.e. spy. Now, who 
- in their common sense - sign such a LoA?
I am not even talking about the case Norbert was describing, and the 
cases of dozens of other places.
Hey, I am not sure that in Bulgaria that won't be considered bad at some 
point; after all the prime minister was named a mobster in a publication 
at the Congressional Quarterly;)

As for my saying that ISOC needs the chapters more - they are the ones 
that bring legitimacy to ISOC; the other way around doesn't work exactly 
the same.

I could understand that there may be some request to move forward the 
LoA, but today, when we are trying to focus all our energy and efforts 
to fight the Saurons of the new, alternative Internet, that's just waste 
of our (and yours) time. We don't need formal document to partner.*ISOC 
didn't need formal documents from the chapters 10 years ago, when we 
were collecting letters from governments and academia in support of the 
ISOC/Afilias bid for the .org registry, so why suddenly the need?* And 
why now? And - at the end - what MORE will it give to the chapters AND 
to ISOC, which doesn't exist today? From the previous discussion - 
nothing, in fact it will remove more, and provide little.

So, please, let us focus on the important issues.

v.

On 09/20/2012 16:06, Ted Mooney wrote:
> An interesting observation, Veni.  I certainly have no choice than to 
> await the resolution of the By-laws issues before proceeding with a 
> Letter of Affiliation. And perhaps while the issue of the LoA was in 
> hiatus due to the clearly more important by-laws discussion, Chapter 
> leaders may have assumed that it is dead.  Nor is the LoA necessarily 
> the only venue of developing and working with the communities that 
> support our shared values.  What is important, I think, is the common 
> and documented understanding of how the parties come together for the 
> communal purpose.  For some that should be a Letter of Affiliation, 
> for others it may be something else such as an exchange of emails.
>
> I continue to hear you say that The Internet Society needs Chapters 
> more than Chapters need the Internet Society.  Perhaps that is true. 
>  Perhaps not.  I do know that we need and rely on each other.  If you 
> were never a member of ISOC you would still be able to follow, use and 
> discuss the excellent work of our Public Policy team, our Trust and 
> Identity team, our Standards and Technology team, and not think twice 
> about it. You may not need the toolkits we develop to assist chapters 
> with outreach in their communities, to train members how work with 
> volunteers, to provide video learning events on open Internet 
> Standards, but there are others who do.  And we will continue to 
> improve our support to them.  For others who are self contained and 
> self-sufficient, I would suggest that we develop a relationship model 
> that builds on that, rather than think of the other as renegade or 
> ungrateful.  I want a partnership with the Bulgarian Chapter and the 
> DC Chapter.  If the LoA is the wrong model, I hope there is another 
> one and offer to work with you to find it.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120920/58c13050/attachment.htm>