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

Maureen Hilyard hilyard at oyster.net.ck
Tue May 7 11:06:07 PDT 2013 

+1 

This is an important clarification.


-----Original Message-----
From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Grigori
Saghyan
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013 4:00 a.m.
To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC Bylaws Working Group (BLWG)

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/BLWGUpdate15MA
>>>>>> R20131final.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

More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list