[Chapter-delegates] Recent Correspondence from the Cambodian Chapter

[borka at e5.ijs.si]

+1 Elver, you are 90% right!

You are right. ISOC SI was asked recently to set up as a founder together
with the Ministry the Slovenian IGF and to help shaping the stand point
regarding the next ITU meeting. Our views regarding net neutrality were 
accepted and the Head of the Directorate answered positively to all our 
requests.

The action is launched by EU Commission and they are looking for
national stand points and support and not from ISOC HQ.

If ISOC wants to be influential on that matters it must support and
listen to the local organizations. Leading and adminsitration of
more than 100 chapters centrally in the ISOC secretariat is not going to 
be very successful, as this is too far away from the real life. 
Hierarchically governed organizations
usually are not long lived.

With regards,

Borka

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>