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

[Richard Hill]

Thank you for these good comments.

Please see my embedded comments below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Koch
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 22:32
> To: Chapter Delegates
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for
> greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs
> 
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 03:11:05PM -0400, avri doria wrote:
> 
> > *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.
> 
> this background text mixes anecdotal evidence ("in one case ...") with
> conclusions (or even speculation) and a general observation (1st
> paragraph).  It appears there are two different issues ("local"
> contacts and policy papers) and I'd like to see them stated and
> addressed separately.

Good suggestion, I will revise the paper accordingly.

> 
> > *Recommendations*
> >
> > Review with the relevant chapters, policy positions and alliances
> > before
> 
> s/relevant/concerned/, maybe?

On the basis of Edouardo's comment, I propose to deleted "relevant".

> 
> > 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.
> 
> See above: let's make the "we're visiting your territory" notifications
> a separate item.

Agreed.

> 
> > 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
> 
> s/ownership/responsibility/ ?

Agreed.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> As others have stated, the "staff vs membership/chapters" language
> implies controversy more than necessary.  My reading is that staff is
> "holding the pen", that is, staff drafts text and fulfills an editor's
> function.

Yes, but they fulfill that function under the delegated responsibility of
the Board of Trustees.  I will make that clear in the new draft.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Pragmatically speaking, making deadlines is more important than formal
> transparency ("just prior to"). Since at this stage there's no
> reasonable expectation of influential (to the submission) comments, I'd
> be happy with "immediately after".

I disagree.  ISOC members should be informed of what is being published
before outsiders see it.  Otherwise we can be asked questions without
knowing that a policy paper has been published.

So I propose to maintain "prior to".

> 
> -Peter
>  ISOC.DE
> _______________________________________________
> 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