[Chapter-delegates] ISOC Bylaws Working Group (BLWG)

[Ted Mooney]

Greetings, Christian,

Please see my administrative clarifications in-line below.  Note I have only addressed specific mechanisms and not the full content of your comments, which is better left to those in authority.

Best regards,

Ted

Ted Mooney
Sr. Director, Membership & Services
Cell: 301-980-6446
Skype: ted.mooney3

www.internetsociety.org





On May 7, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:

> Avri
> 
> The chapter delegates and president's list already are long standing
> vehicles for liaison and sharing between chapters. So surely we can use
> those to get things going?
> 
> I am not clear what the idea behind an advisory council as is being
> called would be? Perhaps it will be made clearer after the ByLaws team
> reports.
> 
The recommended update to the by-laws provides an explicit right (implicit today) for chapters to organize a chapter advisory body to advise the President and the BoT on matters important to the Community.
> Observationally the functions that emerge from your comment below are
> 
> a - Chartering and good governance of chapters
> b - Appeals by chapters
> c - Liaison between chapters
> d - Advisory to ISOC Board of Trustees
> 
> Is that about right?
> 
Within the current recommended by-laws, the chapter chartering process  (a. above) is unchanged. 

> If the organisational advisory council is the model being assumed by the
> ByLaws team then it would suggest that none of the above functions are
> governance in the sense that no binding decisions are made impacting one
> of the members by the AC.
> 
> If that is the case it would then assume another structure makes the
> ultimate decisions.
> 
> The obvious body would be the Board of Trustees.
> 
> So any chapter activity would inform, discuss, liaise provide input and
> feedback and develop consensus where possible between chapters and
> communicate such with the community in particular in reference to the
> ISOC Board.
> 
> In that sense it would not have a governance role but would be a handy
> function for what I believe does need to be in the ByLaws which is
> requirement for the Trustees to support activities that inform, educate
> and provide consensus development within and between ISOC constituencies
> (elector communities) and in communications with the board.
> 
Such a request was not among the comments received and so has not been considered. However, this may be considered implicit in both the mission statement and other areas of the by-laws and ISOC publicly stated principles.
> i.e., I don't think the Bylaws need wait on one or another particular
> structure being formally established by chapters but instead should
> provide a requirement that makes it attractive for the Board to set in
> motion support and resources that would assist in satisfying that
> requirement.
> 
This is within both the spirit and implementation of the recommended by-laws update.
> As to appeals. I agree with you. This seems to me to be a primary role
> for the ISOC Trustees which acts as ultimate appeal authority for a
> number of bodies in IETF as well.
> 
This provision is in the recommendation.
> Having said that the recent experience of the board vote on ECC
> structure led to a Trustee vote without presenting a draft resolution to
> the community to comment at all. The ByLaws need to ensure that Board
> resolutions particularly those impacting its communities of constituent
> electors are given sufficient air time for comment before a vote is
> finally taken. A gap of one board meeting in advance would seem one
> approach.
> 
> There may be need for emergency resolutions to be passed of course and
> that is acceptable but they should be subject to later review so there
> is an opportunity to wind these back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> This is the response I sent on another list to the email below.
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> This was one of the conundrums, without some sort of structure, for example a Chapter Advisory Council, there was no mechanism for collective Chapter decisions on issues like chartering and de-chartering. And the bylaws committee was not the place for designing such a mechanism.  Doing that is something that the Charters need to do for themselves. That is part of the whole process of the Chapters developing the Chapter Advisory Council and designating its role and responsibilities.
>>> 
>>> Internet Society staff remains responsible for the process at this point, but I believe they need to work with the Chapters to figure out how this should be handled. And I understood that they were ready to do so.  I also beleive that once mechanisms have been developed, the Chapters will be able to ask for by-laws changes that might be necessary to enable the mechanisms.
>>> 
>>> avri
>> 
>> Additional note: So it makes sense to me to start figuring out how the chapters are going to create the Chapter Advisory Council.  The sooner that happens, the sooner the Chapters will be able to claim they have the necessary mechanisms for managing these process with the assistance of the staff instead of having the staff managing the processes consultation of the chapters.
>> 
>> I still think we will need an appeals mechanism even after the Chapter Advisory Council comes into existence for there is no assurance that self rule will be just rule in all cases.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 6 May 2013, at 02:16, CW Mail wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Good morning:
>>>> 
>>>>> In the light of more than two years of past discussions of the revision of the ISOC Bylaws, allow me to draw your attention to the current work of the newly established Bylaws Working Group.
>>>>> The minutes of their meeting which took place on 14 March 2013 have been posted:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/BLWGUpdate15MAR20131final.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is good that these matters are finally being addressed in an operationally effective manner. I trust that the questions of  … 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -	Chapter Membership of ISOC, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -	balanced representation in the BoT, including regional diversity and 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -	consultation of Chapters on policy development  
>>>>> … will be satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have noticed the following extract from the minutes of the 14 March meeting:
>>>>> 
>>>>> <<4.	Staff has responsibility for chartering and de-chartering Chapters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BLWG suggested peer review appeal panel for de-charter appeal.
>>>>> Should Chapter wish further appeal, it could then bring issue to BoT. 
>>>>> This will be further discussed.>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would have two comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.	It is entirely inappropriate for the ISOC staff to have sole responsibility for chartering and de-chartering Chapters.
>>>>> 	(Actually, chartering new chapters is currently presented to the BoT for approval.)
>>>>> 	De-chartering a Chapter may have local, national and regional, practical and political repercussions which go beyond the mandate of the staff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2.	A peer review panel should be an essential element of any decision to de-charter a Chapter and should not depend upon an 'appeal'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be appreciated if the BLWG could take these comments into account. Other Chapters may also wish to comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Christopher Wilkinson.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130507/d29ad08d/attachment.htm>