[Chapter-delegates] stonewalling

[Gihan Dias]

On 2016-04-11 පෙ.ව. 7:41, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Gihan,
>
> 1. there is a large and increasing number of participants in Chapter 
> delegates discussions. We can request from ISOC IT an official count, 
> or each of us run our own. Based just on what I keep on file there's 
> no less than 40 people - in varying degrees - in the last year alone.
Alejandro,

This is what I meant. At 4 people per chapter for 100 chapters, there is 
a potential of say 400 people on this list, of which 90% have been 
totally silent.
>
> 2. there are several ways to measure the decrease of interaction 
> between Board and Chapters, using different metrics. One of them is 
> participation by Trustees in online discussions with Chapter leaders 
> and members. Again for this we can ask for a count of messages from 
> Trustees. There are Chapter-elected Trustees who have not sent out 
> more than 1-2 messages per year while they were/are sitting Trustees. 
> Another easy count is the number of Trustees who attend meetings like 
> the ISOC-in-ICANN and the ISOC Chapters and Delegates meetings (now 
> merged); it is fair to count during those ICANN meetings during which 
> also a Board meeting is held as all Trustees are attending the Board 
> meeting. Can we have access to the official attendee lists? Do we need 
> to make a formal request or can you get it started based on your 
> standing? I - and surely others - volunteer for defining the requests 
> and analyzing the data.
I see almost all board members who are present come for ISoc at whatever 
events, unless they have another conflicting event are or jet-lagged.
However, What I'm concerned about is your use of the term "stonewalling"
> stone|wall[ˈstəʊnwɔːl, stəʊnˈwɔːl]
> VERB
> delay or obstruct (a request, process, or person) by refusing to 
> answer questions or by being evasive:

Gihan