[Chapter-delegates] Renewal Internet Society Chapter Charter

Mon Nov 18 14:14:25 PST 2013

Alejandro,
My intention was to figure out (hoping this is not confidential
information) what legislation would be OK with the items requested.
Definitely not silencing anyone. And clearly no offense meant.

V.

On Monday, November 18, 2013, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

> Grigori, Veni,
>
> as this discussion continues, it is quite a surprise to see you begin to
> question, and in some cases probably offend, even fellow chapters.
>
> That quantum leap may make it very hard to hold a rational debate that
> serves ISOC's mission, serves the chapters, and takes us forward, as many
> of us may decide not to join ranks in a confrontation. It would be very
> disagreeable if that happened, because it would be chapters silencing
> chapters by indirect but no less effective mechanisms.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ________________________________________
> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org <javascript:;> [
> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org <javascript:;>] en nombre de
> Grigori Saghyan [gregor at arminco.com <javascript:;>]
> Enviado el: lunes, 18 de noviembre de 2013 13:21
> Hasta: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org <javascript:;>
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Fwd: Renewal Internet Society Chapter
> Charter
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear All,
> I do not think, that the quantity of signatures are reflecting the
> real situation. Looks, that  for some Chapters only the fact, that
> they are formally "ISOC Chapters" is enough  argument to sign the
> proposed document.
> Today Internet Society has serious challenges, and it is possible to
> find an  adequate answer  to these challenges  is possible, if there
> is common understanding of current problems. And formal description of
> the status of the Chapter is one of the most important points.
> I do not think, that ISOC with 25 Chapters, who have sign proposed
> document is a real power. BTW - who they are?
> With respect
> Grigori Saghyan
> ISOC.AM
>
> On 18.11.2013 21:50, Veni Markovski wrote:
> > Hi, everyone. In the beginning - *please, read all my comments, as
> > there's important question, concerning ALL chapters at the end. *
> >
> > Isn't this something we already discussed? I am not quite following
> > the list, but I thought that some weeks ago we talked about the
> > fact that ISOC HQ requesting such a document from chapters around
> > the globe, is a mistake. I thought that someone has actually made
> > the case why it is not possible - neither legally, nor from
> > political point of view. The suggestion that if a chapter cannot
> > sign this document, it can become an organizational member is also
> > strange - are org members now non-paying? I thought they pay some
> > sponsorship to ISOC. Hope I misunderstood the concept?
> >
> > Those, who have already signed a wrong document, are not good
> > enough argument for the rest to sign it, too.
> >
> > I personally see no need to hurry, do you? (Of course, there is
> > the personal moment - if such a requirement is in the quarterly
> > goals of some people at ISOC?)
> >
> > I am afraid that the 23 chapters Ted says have agreed to the MPS,
> > might not have checked with lawyers, or might not have understood
> > completely what they are signing, or might have believed that they
> > are signing a document, which has not importance whatsoever. And
> > last, but not least, may be they come from countries, where signing
> > such a document is not important. Note, that we still have not
> > addressed with the ISOC membership database - the fact that on US
> > territory, a US-based legal entity is keeping data for Europeans,
> > at the same time, when ISOC itself is protesting against Prism,
> > ACTA, TPP and other dangerous initiatives.
> >
> > I believe someone also asked on this list *ISOC HQ to respond to
> > the question: *how can a chapter support the operating principles
> > of ISOC? Is there a Board resolution, asking the staff to request
> > this from the chapters? Now, I guess, we need to ask for some
> > background information - who decided this is a requirement? How
> > would it be enforced? What would happen, if it is not followed? Why
> > would ISOC give its staff to waive any of the requirements? If
> > there is a waiver, would it be more natural for the chapters to
> > decide which ones of the requirements fit into their legal model
> > and statutes, and thus solve the whole problem? Is it not more fair
> > for the chapters to actually "waive", rather than for a staffer,
> > who may not even understand the cross-cultural differences or the
> > legal background.
> >
> > Hope this is helpful.
> >
> >
> > On 11/18/13 12:19, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ted, Hello e

-- 
Best,
Veni
http://veni.com
https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
https://twitter.com/veni

***
The opinions expressed above are those of
the author, not of any organizations,
associated with or related to him in
any given way.
***

== Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the
touchscreen keyboard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131118/d43c2839/attachment.htm>