[Chapter-delegates] Recent Correspondence from the Cambodian Chapter

[Elver Loho]

Two points.

1. Global decisions are made on the local level. If a body such as ITU
convenes to vote on something, then ISOC HQ is just another
organization at that global round table. As such, its influence is
limited, if not entirely nonexistent. The people that actually vote on
the important issues do so based on the guidelines of their local
government. By the time the vote reaches the international body (where
ISOC HQ is at the table), every government has already made up its
mind. How does a government make up its mind? Based on local and
international lobbying in the months leading up to the event. Before
the last controversial ITU event, we lobbied the hell out of Estonian
representatives and everyone can check the record to see how Estonia
voted.

If anyone at the ISOC HQ thinks that shipping representatives to such
events can actually influence the outcome of the vote, then I'm
worried that you don't quite understand how governments and diplomacy
work. Decisions have already been made on the local level weeks or
months earlier. If you actually want to influence the outcomes of
international votes, you need to invest in building strong and
cooperative local Chapters, which can lobby the issues locally, for a
global outcome.

2. As for the worry that Chapters will become dependent on ISOC HQ and
therefore ISOC HQ gains too much influence over the local Chapters,
then I think that's just absurd. ISOC is a values-based organization
and these are values we all share. HQ can't afford to issue guidelines
or directives, which conflict with the basic values of ISOC, or with
local laws. There would be too much stink and finger-pointing on this
mailing list, as the issue of Chapter bylaws guidelines shows.

If anything, I'm worried that there will be too much red tape
associated with getting this basic administrative funding.
Requirements and guidelines and whatnot. Not out of intent to
influence, or malice, but out of a misguided belief that Chapters
can't be trusted with money without excessive oversight. Local
Chapters know best how to use the money locally for maximum effect.
For example, there's a letter from the Ministry of Communications in
our inbox right now asking us to give feedback on the EU net
neutrality legislation by October 1st. I'm 90% certain that if we
provided an opinion, then it would be used as the basis of the
Estonian government's position on the issue. I'm also 90% certain that
nobody on our board, nor outside, will be able to put together an
opinion by that deadline, because we're too busy with making ends
meet.

And I'm 90% certain that people at the ISOC HQ think that this
legislation should be tackled by the ISOC European HQ, and ignored by
the local Chapters. Which, as I said above, is not how things actually
work. Decisions are made on the local level, before representatives
are sent to the international forum. Having an ISOC lobbyist sitting
at that international table is about as effective use of funds as just
taking the ISOC money to a strip club.

How much is it worth to ISOC HQ that one country out of the 28
European Union countries continues to hold positions, which are in
line with ISOC's values? How much would it be worth if all 28 EU
countries had strong local Chapters capable of convincing the local
legislators to keep internet free? How much are you currently spending
on ineffective international lobbying and press releases, when the
actual decisionmaking happens on a level, which you can't reach and
which you stubbornly refuse to fund?

Funding local Chapters is not a question of whether you trust the
locals to do the right thing. Or whether the HQ will get too much
influence over them. Funding local Chapters is a question of how
effective ISOC is around the world in upholding its values. The
internet is a global entity with decisions made around the world -- in
every country, every day. Thinking that you can somehow influence
these decisions on the global HQ or regional HQ level is an absurd and
wasteful mismanagement of the ISOC budget and it needs to stop.

The problem we all face right now is that the ISOC budget is already
being spent on the upkeep of the global and regional HQs. Any
reallocation of funds to Chapters will mean cutting funds to the
various HQs. Which means that some people will likely need to be fired
or have their salaries or benefits reduced. These are people who
either decide whether to reallocate the funds to Chapters or they are
friends with these decisionmakers. It's sort of like lobbying members
of parliament to reduce their own salary or reduce the size of the
parliament. I'm worried that Chapter funding will not happen, no
matter how much we write about it on this mailing list, unless we show
that we are serious. It has been said before that those who make
peaceful revolution impossible, will make not-so-peaceful revolution
inevitable. The Cambodian Chapter's decision to dissolve might just be
the first drop of a thunderous rainstorm.

Best,
Elver
.ee


elver.loho at gmail.com
+372 5661 6933
skype: elver.loho


On 29 September 2013 17:15, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> See below.
>
> On 09/29/13 10:05, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>
> Veni
>
> The point is that it is ISOC that gets the revenue flows, not the chapters
> nor a body or foundation promoting local Internet communities such as
> chapters. So a chapter only gets access to the .org funds through ISOC. It
> may well be that ISOC may have not been awarded .org franchise without the
> chapters but there was no agreement with chapters on how any revenues would
> be divided up.
>
>
> Of course there wasn't, but there were statements that no .org money will go
> to cover the expenses of ISOC, but only for public policy projects. We
> supported ISOC HQ, because we believed in it - don't forget, that's a long
> time ago, and ISOC was at the edge of bankruptcy.
>
>
> There is a moral duty I think for ISOC to develop local Internet communities
> and the not for profit sector use of Internet and the .org revenues are very
> much part of that opportunity. The chapters who supported the .org bid for
> ISOC would seem a great place to focus on to deliver that mission. ISOC
> Trustees have emphasised the broad thrust of this intent but so far
> implementation has not been strong.
>
>
> Agree.
>
> Bearing that in mind I would expect rather more than 2-3% of ISOC budget for
> chapter led activities. But I was not talking about that content led
> mission. I was limiting my comments to bootstrapping a shared secretariat
> resource that Chapters could tap into so volunteers are supported.  I would
> be very disappointed if chapter funding became dominated by "secretariat" or
> "admin" issues. Ideally we need to try to keep overheads to a very small
> level as proportion of overall spend. We should certainly be aiming to be in
> the top 10% of NFP bodies in this regards.
>
>
> Well, 2-3 % would have been a good start - it's abot $ 1 million. Someone
> else suggested it. I was suggesting actually much bigger change - $ 10
> Million, distributed among 100 chapters.
>
> v.