[Chapter-delegates] ISOC Bylaws Working Group (BLWG)
Maureen Hilyard
hilyard at oyster.net.ck
Tue May 7 14:52:56 PDT 2013
We had an interesting experience when we offered a page on our PICISOC
website for national IT organisations that included PICISOC members within
their respective countries. We wanted to showcase what was being done by
PICISOC members from our 22 Pacific countries.
We were told by ISOC that because these organisations were not ISOC
chapters, we could not put them onto our site.
The choice to recognise our own members and how they are encouraging ISOC
objectives through their own national organisations was not ours. We had
wanted to spread that message, but were not permitted to do so on our
PICISOC website.
So how are we defined?
Maureen
Pacific Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of John More
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013 8:34 a.m.
To: Grigori Saghyan
Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC Bylaws Working Group (BLWG)
Grigori
I know from your past postings that the Armenian Chapter must comply with
Armenian law. I doubt that anyone would disqualify your Chapter because
Armenians must join the Chapter first (or perhaps exclusively). Your
question should be answered, but I do not think there has to be a definition
in the Bylaws.
>From my viewpoint, the status of any individual Chapter depends upon what
is permissible under the laws of its local jurisdiction. One size does not
fit all.
In fact, it would be a mistake to define a Chapter too narrowly.
Certain guidelines could be issued by ISOC to provide some clarity. The
definition should not be put into the Bylaws, in order to preserve
flexibility. In particular, any implication that the Bylaws written under
the laws of the District of Columbia, where ISOC is chartered, should govern
the legal structure of Chapters created under other jurisdictions should be
avoided.
Clearly Chapters are not departments of ISOC. They clearly are organized
groups of individuals who share the goals of ISOC and wish to be part of its
activities on the local level (and presumably also the international). I
would assume all have some sort of "Bylaws" or similar document creating
some sort of statement of goals and governance. So I would think that a non
formal organization could be a Chapter but could not be without ByLaws
(perhaps better expressed as a "governing document").
In writing this, I am not speaking on behalf of the Society or of the
Washington DC Chapter. My thoughts are based on my having creating
nonprofits in the US (including for internationally oriented nonprofits) as
a lawyer with insights from my international law practice and from being a
community organizer.
Regards,
John More
On May 7, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com> wrote:
> 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/BLWGUpdate15M
>>>>>>> AR20131final.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list