[Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs

[Eduardo Diaz]

I do not see how eliminating the statement will imply that we are
recommending to change any ISOC structure or give members greater
responsibility.

The way I read it, the recommendation is geared to give chapters the chance
to comment on papers put out by ISOC before they are published. As far as I
know comments are just comments. They can be taken into account or not.  I
do not think they are mandates.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

-ed

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Dear Eduoardo,
>
>
>
> OK for the first change, I understand the logic.
>
>
> Regarding the second change, as I stated in a previous message, it seems
> to me that in the current structure of ISOC it is the Board who has the
> authority to issue policy statements, and the Board delegates that
> authority to the staff. I fully understand that some people would like to
> give greater responsibility to the members: that topic will be discussed in
> the Chapters Advisory Council. But, for this recommendation, I think that
> we should stick to ISOC’s current structure.  Otherwise it will get stuck
> into a big discussion about the structure of ISOC.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 18:45
> *To:* Richard Hill
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for
> greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs
>
>
>
> I believe in including everyone. It promotes inclusiveness
> and transparency.
>
>
>
> In reality and what most probably happens is that those affected will be
> the ones that will provide the feedback. However, the rest of the chapters
> will have the opportunity to be an active/passive participant in the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Also, I will eliminate the following: *"...with the understanding that
> staff retains full ownership*
>
> *for the final version"*.
>
>
>
> It has been stated in the recommendation that that chapters are providing
> just comments. In my very own personal opinion, I feel uneasy about this
> statement. It feels like a mandate from staff.
>
>
>
> -ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:22 PM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Eduardo,
>
>
>
> Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. The second recommendation refers
> to policies that apply globally.  The first one is intended to refer to
> policies that apply only to a specific country/region.
>
>
>
> So the idea was to consult only the chapters in the concerned
> country/region.
>
>
>
> However, if you think that all chapters should be consulted even for
> policy that apply only to a specific country/region, that is fine with me,
> and I would be happy to accept your original proposed edit.
>
>
>
> Thanks and best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 18:19
> *To:* Richard Hill; Chapter Delegates
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for
> greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs
>
>
>
> Richard:
>
>
>
>
>
> *ALL* chapters should be given the opportunity in getting involved in the
> process regardless of which country/region the policy statement is for. In
> the specific case, the chapters affected should be the most vociferous. So,
> I do not agree with the proposed change.
>
>
>
> Others in the list may want to comment on this as well.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:43 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Eduardo,
>
>
> Thank you for spotting this.
>
>
>
> The recommendation in question was intended to apply to the situation
> where ISOC staff contacts national policy makers.  I would propose to
> rephrase it as follows:
>
>
>
> “When ISOC staff contacts national policy makers, they should review with
> the relevant chapters policy positions and alliances before
>
> they are made, and inform the chapters of meetings with national policy
>
> makers, unless time constraints do not permit it. We have active mailing
>
> lists that can make it quick and easy.”
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Chapter-delegates [mailto:
> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On Behalf Of *Eduardo Diaz
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 15:53
> *To:* Chapter Delegates
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for
> greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs
>
>
>
> @All:
>
>
>
> I recommend to eliminate the word " relevant" in the first paragraph in
> the reccomendation to read  as follows: *"Review with the chapters,
> policy..." . *
>
>
>
> The word "relevant" implies that some chapters will be excluded from the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> The dictionary definition for this word is: *"closely connected or
> appropriate to the matter at hand."*
>
>
>
> -ed
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:12 PM avri doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Dear ChAC delegates,
>
> The ChAC Steering Committee has reviewed "A proposal for greater
> involvement of Chapters in the position and policy brief development
> process"  (below & attached) and is submitting it to the Chapter Council
> for approval.
>
> Decisions by the ChAC are governed by the Rules & Procedure paragraph 6
>
> > Substantive decisions, in particular regarding advice and
> > recommendations, shall be made by the AC. Decisions may be made by
> > electronic means (e.g. E-Mail, electronic voting systems, etc.) or
> > during remote (audio/video conferencing) or physical meetings.
> > Decisions shall normally be taken by consensus (meaning lack of formal
> > opposition). If consensus cannot be achieved, then the Chair of the AC
> > Steering Committee shall organize a vote. In case of voting, decisions
> > shall be taken by a majority vote of the delegates to the AC. The
> > quorum shall be nineteen (19) delegates. In case of tie, the matter
> > will be resubmitted for discussion and a new vote. Votes will be
> > secret. The tally of votes (for, against, abstain, did not vote) will
> > be published. Abstentions will be counted towards determining the quorum.
>
> At this point I would like to open discussion on this proposal for the
> next week - until 8/27 1200 UTC.  At that point I will initiate a
> consensus call on the document, including any changes that may be
> warranted as part of the discussion.  This consensus call will also be
> scheduled for 1 week.  Should the document not meet with consensus, I
> will then request that we continue discussion on it and will bring it to
> a vote.
>
> Thank you
>
> Avri Doria
>
> (for the ChAC SC)
>
>
> -----
>
> *A proposal for greater involvement of Chapters in the position and
> policy brief development process*
>
> *Background*
>
> In the past, there have been occasions when ISOC staff met with national
> policy makers without involving the national chapter in any way. Since
> national chapters often have good relations with national officials, it
> would be preferable if the chapters are also involved in meetings with
> national officials. We propose a recommendation below to that effect.
>
> At present, there does not seem to be a consistent practice within ISOC
> regarding the role of the membership in the policy development
> process and the preparation of background and position papers that ISOC
> puts forward. Specifically, some policy papers are submitted to the
> membership for comment, specifically the policy briefs, while others
> papers, such as position papers, are not. In one case, the membership
> was not informed of a specific submission. It appears to us that
> systematic consultation with the membership can only improve the quality
> of a policy, background paper, or position paper. The intent is not to
> change ISOC's current decision-making process for such papers: staff
> would remain fully responsible for the final version of the paper. The
> intent is to allow staff to benefit systematically from the views of the
> membership, and to decide whether or how to incorporate comments from
> the membership. We propose a recommendation below to that effect.
>
>
> *Recommendations*
>
> Review with the relevant chapters, policy positions and alliances before
> they are made, and inform them of meetings with national policy
> makers, unless time constraints do not permit it. We have active mailing
> lists that can make it quick and easy.
>
> In general, policy, background and position papers, including policy
> briefs should be submitted to the membership for comment prior to
> publication, with the understanding that staff retains full ownership
> for the final version. Staff can choose the most appropriate method to
> consult the membership, for example by asking for volunteers to review
> drafts, by posting a draft for comment to a mailing list, by convening a
> virtual meeting to discuss the issues, etc.
>
> Further, when papers are published and/or submitted to some entity
> outside ISOC, the membership should be informed and a link to the paper
> should be sent to the appropriate mailing list and to the Chapter
> Delegate's mailing list just prior to the publication or submission.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160822/1d9dbd86/attachment.htm>