[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

[Alfredo Calderon]

My perception is that the new MOU offers a clear guideline for Chapters. It
strives to let interested groups/organizations interested in organizing a
Chapter what is expected of their performance.

I understand that this document is still open for suggestions and
enhancement.


[image: photo]
*Alfredo Calderon*
eLearning Consultant
calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype:
Alfredo_1212 <#> | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
<http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>
<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>
<http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>
<http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon>
<http://klout.com/#/acalderon52> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon>
Get your own email signature
<https://wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There is nothing in this document which offers more support to chapters.
> The only thing this document does is increase control over chapters by
> central office.  It obliges chapters to engage in additional activities as
> a condition of being funded, despite the fact all funding must be applied
> for in advance via detailed proposals and may be refused.  It offers
> nothing positive to the chapters.  It is merely an effort to restrict the
> independence of chapters and reduce their ability to adapt to local
> circumstance.  I am particularly concerned it demands on-going lobbying
> activity as a condition of being a chapter.  I am fairly sure this will
> make some chapters illegal in some countries where lobbying by
> foreign-funded organisations is illegal.
>
> To be balanced, there should be some reciprocal reaching out by central
> office - such as better communication and listening to chapters.  For
> example, this document should have been put to the chapters as a discussion
> document for feedback months before it was finalised.  The fact it was not
> indicates ISOC is anti-democratic, and run by a small central group who, in
> my view, have failed to recognise ISOC is not the same type of organisation
> as it was 10-20 years ago.
>
> Regards,
> Brandt Dainow
> brandt.dainow at gmail.com
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow
> http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alan Levin
> Sent: 02 August 2017 08:56
> To: Joyce Dogniez; ISOC Chapter Delegates; chapter-support at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement
>
> Hi all,
>
> > On 31 Jul 2017, at 12:06 PM, Joyce Dogniez <dogniez at isoc.org> wrote:
> > With the increased financial support to our Chapters we also have an
> increased responsibility and accountability towards our community. It is
> the responsibility of Internet Society s leadership to manage its funds in
> a responsible and transparent manner.
> > This implies that the legal relationship between Internet Society and
> its Chapters needs to be well defined.
>
> Thanks for this. I think it s very good!  Well done Joyce and others :)
>
> >   Purpose of Chapter.
> > The purpose of the Chapter shall be to support the Internet Society s
> vision, mission, and operating principles in the Territory.
>
> I agree that this is one purpose of the Internet Society of South Africa,
> and the purpose of this agreement :)
>
> One of our primary purposes as an association of Internet Society members,
> is to participate in the ICT policy making processes in our country.
> Another purpose is to assist our colleagues in other countries with their
> policy making in that country.
>
> We have asked for over a decade for global support on national policy
> making activities. I have suggested that a policy analyst who can compare
> various trending policies to be able to provide us with important
> international data about other policies in other countries of similar
> nature. For example we have a Cybersecurity Bill in our Parliamentary
> process and it will be invaluable to see an analysis of it s components
> compared to other countries that have already been through that process,
> ideally not a US centric or  North  view, something neutral would be ideal.
>
> So regards this section:
> > Internet Society Support.
> > The Internet Society will provide the following support to the chapters
> in accordance with ISOC s annual business plan:
>
> I suggest again that we need support from ISOC Global to provide a global
> policy analyst to assist with support on National Policy Making activities.
> This should not be a local activity, it s not regional, it's a global
> policy analyst  activity need that we have had for decades. Please help !
>
> Sincerely
>
>
> Alan Levin
> ISOC-ZA
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170802/04755f28/attachment.htm>