[Chapter-delegates] ChAC Decision Needed: Proposal for greater Chapter participation in developing position & policy briefs
Louis Houle
louis.houle at oricom.ca
Fri Aug 26 14:23:46 PDT 2016
+1
Louis Houle
President
ISOC Quebec
Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
Le 2016-08-22 à 14:12, Eduardo Diaz a écrit :
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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 <mailto: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
>> <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 <mailto: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
>> <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 <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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/20160826/0fbbb929/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list