[Chapter-delegates] Obvious right choice: Make Chapter proposals "recommendations"

[Brandt Dainow]

It seems to me ISOC is suffering major growing strains.  Clearly the amount of activity, the increasing range and diversity, is something our central mechanisms are struggling to keep up with.  This is a common problem in any growing organisation.  Indeed, inability to grow proper management mechanisms to handle profitable growth causes 60% of businesses to collapse when they expand.  Not only does it appear, from your email, that systems are straining, it also suggests internal culture needs adapting.  In particular, the growth of national chapters means the chance of gaining consensus agreement for any detailed proposition will decrease .  We may all be able to agree on general principles, but how that translates into specific actions by any single chapter will have to vary.  This means we cannot expect universal agreement on many things which were previously uncontroversial.  It means ISOC must learn to handle multiple perspectives, permanent and unresolvable disagreements over some details, and all the other disagreements which exist in any large global voluntary organisation.  To my thinking, this can only be done by a loose relationship between central and chapters.

 

It also seems to me ISOC needs to bring more clarity to how it sees the chapters and the central branch.  ISOC is unusual in that central branch brings in the money, rather than the local chapters, as is normal in non-profit organisations.  This tends to give central a power it would not have if the chapters produced the income.  If that were the case, there would be no question – the chapters would own the organisation and central would exist to serve them.  It seems to me we are experiencing a tension between the desire of chapters to be independent and the tendency of central to exert control.  ISOC needs to decide whether chapters are vehicles in service to ISOC’s global aims, or whether chapters are independent bodies which ISOC central exists to fund and support.  It is a given that we all accept the same principles, and general aims.  These are what bind us together.  However, if ISOC wants to put the power in the hands of the members, rather than holding control in a limited number of central committees and staff, that requires giving much more to national chapters.  This requires a culture shift in some staff, and the introduction of mechanisms to ensure chapters genuinely have control over their own affairs.  It is reasonable for a central body to ensure all chapters meet minimum standards, but there should be an open mechanism for disputing judgements if central believe not – it cannot be just an internal decision by a staffer which cannot be challenged.  Similarly, the approval process for funding allocations should be subject to objective, reviewable, criteria which are published and known to all.  And any funding refusals should have an appeal mechanism.

 

Some in ISOC may regard such steps as going backwards.  For some, it will mean accepting that many cherished ideas cease to be part of ISOC policy.  For example, the neo-liberal tendency to prioritise commercial over government innovation is something many national chapters would reject.  Others may reject the preference for minimum regulation, for permissionless innovation.  There will certainly be wide variations over sexual content, age of access to it, the role of some services in education, and so forth.  We may even have to accept differences over what constitutes “fair” internet access.  Some cultures regard technical matters as having a social dimension, while other cultures regard those same issues as “neutral.”  If people have a specific vision of the internet they wish ISOC to promote, allowing chapters more variation will be counter-productive.

 

I understand that many in ISOC pay lip-service to the ideal of a more democratic, bottom-up, approach.  However, I do not see much in the way of genuine work towards that.  While I support the work of informal groups, they hardly constitute serious effort by ISOC to address the issue.  If ISOC is serious about getting deeper and wider participation in its decisions and internal processes, there needs to be much more serious effort than I can see at present.  If ISOC wants chapters to serve it’s central aims, then it needs to enhance communication to chapters and be more specific, more dynamic, and much more informative.  Either way, ISOC needs to develop a vision of its own growth path over the  next decade or two, then change internal mechanisms to suit.

 

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

 <mailto:brandt.dainow at gmail.com> brandt.dainow at gmail.com

 

 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow

 <http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow> http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burstein
Sent: 03 August 2017 14:35
To: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Obvious right choice: Make Chapter proposals "recommendations"

 

All

 

The 61 and counting emails on the proposal make it clear there is no consensus. We are already arguing over whether actively promoting a specific policy choice is or is not "lobbying." 

 

That's an incredible waste of member time over semantics. It's also very expensive; one of the staffers weighing in costs ISOC about $2,000/day.

 

If multi-stakeholder is more than a hollow slogan, this obvious lack of consensus should send everything back to the drafting committee. 

 

But many of the ideas make good sense and chapters will happily incorporate them. So let's move forward and accomplish what this should be about: more effective chapters. 

--------------

Kathy - Please comment here. I doubt the direct staffers would take action here unless they knew you backed it.

---------------

I call on members of this list to pick out the good ideas in this proposal, including by pointing them out here. I think we can agree on most of them. Then we can suggest the Chapters committee as well as the staff, put them out as recommendations.

 

No one has identified here abuses that would justify heavy handed action; staff has plenty of authority already to take action when they find the inevitable bad actors.

 

ISOC staff will never have the time to even observe whether most of these "rules" are being followed by chapters around the world, much less enforce them. 

 

We already spend $2 or $3 in staff time for every $ under the partial control of chapters. That's incredibly wasteful micromanagement.

 

We don't even know how many chapters we have. Our new website says 100+; when we tried to calculate the cost of the chapter funding proposal, staff told us it was likely more like 50-60. 

 

We also have an obviously inflated count of members. The home page of our web site should not have claims with the veracity of a campaigning politician.

-------------------------

 

Most ISOC members and chapters don't care enough to write to the list. Others are reluctant because they seek funding for the chapter, international trips, etc. 

 

That so many have commented suggests a great deal of unspoken doubt. 

 

The politically smart move would therefore be to back away from something that would be almost as effective as a recommendation. 

 

That probably won't happen unless Kathy speaks up. It's hard for staffers to back down; we all have egos. 

 

It can't be right for the chapters to think a few bureaucrats have the right to tell them what to do, even if the people involved are well-meaning and respected.

 

Dave

 

 

-- 

Editor, Fast Net News, WIreless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170803/5b590260/attachment.htm>