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

Mon Aug 22 11:12:30 PDT 2016

John:

I still believe that all chapters should be welcome to comment on anything.
As is in the recommendation - *"...Staff can choose the most appropriate
method to **consult the membership..." *it is assumed that staff will do
this the most effective way.

With respect to removing the "ownership": my point there is that we are
just issuing comments not mandates. It is well understood that the ChAC is
just an advisory committee to the Board of Trustees and as such it does not
have the authority or responsibility of issuing any mandates to the staff.

Thanks.

-ed

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:27 PM John More <morej1 at mac.com> wrote:

> The understood structure of the ChAC is that it is to serve as a way for
> Chapters to provide a more effective input in support of the Trustees and
> the staff and as a means for the latter to involve Chapters more fully.
> Providing input on papers is a reasonable function as long as it does not
> end up bureaucratizing further ISOC. In that light involving all the
> Chapters in a country or region specific policy or initiative would seem
> counterproductive.  Informing everyone on the other hand would be a good
> idea (as well as seeing the membership bettie informed). Richard’s proposed
> wording captures that.
>
> On the other hand, I too would remove the “ownership” wording and replace
> it with something more like that that staff under delegated authority from
> the Trustees has responsibility for issuing the official version."
>
>
> John More
>
> On Aug 22, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/bf0beee2/attachment.htm>