[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

[Winthrop Yu]

   ISOC-PH would have no problems complying with policy engagement requirements 
(more like *weekly*, which far exceeds the *annual* requirement for 
'mission-related activities'), at the same time noting that it would be tedious 
and repetitive to report on all of these, and that some such consultations will 
necessarily have to fly under-the-radar.

   Our stances during engagements are localized yet aligned with ISOC's global 
mission and principles. Our positions certainly gain considerable weight as part 
of a global organization, but we also place these in a local context with 
relevance to current local issues, and therefore also highlight the autonomy of 
the chapter.

   That being said, we would be much relieved if the "chapters' agreement" were 
a checklist with no hard requirement to comply with ALL the points. How should 
we view this? "Bright line" + "light touch"?

WYn
PH



On 8/2/2017 10:47 PM, Alfredo Calderon wrote:
> Hi to all:
> 
> I have to agree with Glenn on this point. We in ISOC-PR support local 
> issues where we feel we can have an impact and are related to local 
> Internet issues. On the other side, we do not involve our organization 
> in political issues or issues that might be against ISOC Global mission.
> 
> Again, the MOU is a guideline that sets the pace for how Chapters can 
> get involved.  My understanding that it is not something written in 
> stone requiring a Chapter to meet "all" points.
> 
> My 2cents!
> 
> *Alfredo Calderon*
> 
> _______________________________________________