[Chapter-delegates] Recent Correspondence from the Cambodian Chapter

[Veni Markovski]

Elver,
very well said. Happy to hear a familiar voice here!

v.

On 09/29/13 11:34, Elver Loho wrote:
> 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.

-- 

Best,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
https://www.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.