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

Tue May 7 07:00:12 PDT 2013

dear Ted, All,
I think the most important point is to define the status of the Chapter:
Is it an organization?
Is it department of ISOC global without its organizational structure and
its own by-law?
Is it a non-formal organization without its own by-laws?

We have serious problems in our country, and formally we have to involve
any Armenian citizen in ISOC Armenian Chapter NGO as a member - without
any preliminary registration  this newcomer as an ISOC global member.
According to existing ISOC ByLaws it is impossible.
Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM

On 07.05.2013 17:29, Ted Mooney wrote:
> 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 <http://www.internetsociety.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 7, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net
> <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20130507/2f88141b/attachment.asc>