[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

Tue Aug 15 08:32:21 PDT 2017

Following several comments in the list, regarding the proposed Charter of August 1st for the signature from the Internet Society chapters, I present my general comments before the Italian chapter, by end of August, sends our proposed amendments, elaborated by our Council, to the initial version of the Charter.

 Chapters cannot be considered as subsidiaries of the Internet Society having headquarters in Virginia – US; they should represent Internet Society principles (I like more the term "Internet orthodoxy") in the territories they represent. 

In todays global society we observe that local governments tend to intervene more on policies regarding the Internet like: hate speech, fake news, populisms, privacy, antiterrorism and other aspects that impact on societal attitudes and influence on public voting in the countries. 

It is not by chance that, in the last two years or so, in the Internet community we started to launch messages regarding Internet fragmentation elements. The governments, in many cases, interpret Internet policy as the one that fits better with local equilibriums and their foreign policies. As a consequence, the chapters should represent the opinions coming from what I called Internet orthodoxy and will use arguments to interact with the local government that, in the end will act as decision maker. For governments including a multi-stakeholders approach before deciding on Internet issues, the task for the chapters is easier, but this happens only in a small fraction of territories/countries; last news concerning CGI Brazil are worrying and, in Italy, the expected process for a multi-stakeholder model is still undecided. 

With the approach I propose, the Internet Society will have the chance to evaluate, with the help of the chapters, how much recommended global principles will have the chance to be adopted globally and which variations should be elaborated. 

In substance the Internet Society should adopt an approach with the chapters more oriented to a bottom up philosophy rather than a top down approach; this should be articulated with appropriate language in order to render the Internet Society a global recognized organization.

The initial ideals valid in early nineties, going back to the Larry Landweber approach, where to bring the Internet everywhere, including countries considered "bad guys" and this was easier because governments either ignored the existence of the Internet or simply didn’t care. 

 Final notes: several comments on the recommended Charter are referring to a role of the charters as lobbyists with local governments;  I hate this expression and I agree that the chapters should make their best effort in order to defend Internet orthodoxy as defined inside the Internet Society. 

 The language of the proposed Charter, in my opinion, looks to be not suited for many chapters that rely mainly on best effort achievements assured by voluntary work.  Also it could be defined in a clear way where Internet Society may deny the use Internet Society logo. 

Stefano

------------------------------------------------------
Ing. Stefano Trumpy
Presidente Internet Society Italy

Via del Poggio 27, Livorno, Italia
phone: + 39 0586 579212
mobile: +39 3488218618
e-mail: stefano at trumpy.eu <mailto:stefano at trumpy.eu>
skype: stetru

> On 02/ago/2017, at 16:09, Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like to see the Irish chapter work in the same way, and it was my understanding that this is how ISOC chapters were meant to be - to develop activities responding to local needs and delivered in accord with local cultures, following the broad principles and aims of ISOC, but with considerable discretion about how and what.  This clause makes lobbying a condition of being an ISOC chapter.  The document is not clear on what will happen if an ISOC chapter does not lobby for central branch aims.  Will the chapter be closed?  Have all funding terminated?  Or will nothing happen?  If nothing will happen, the clause shouldn't be there.  Personally, I think it is counter-productive.  It gives people an opportunity to accuse a local  chapter of being controlled by a US organisation.  It obliges chapters to do something, whether that suits their circumstances or not.  It adds nothing to local chapter abilities, and doesn't really help ISOC central.  Right now, trying to get the Irish chapter started, lobbying would require time, effort and expertise we don't have. 
> 
> ISOC pre-approve every financial allocation.  Every year we submit plans for what we will do.  If ISOC want to see a chapter lobbying, or do anything different, they can withhold funding.  The clause should be withdrawn.  
> 
> I think this document mixes two things.  Part of it is to ensure a chapter is well-run - elections, constitutions, bank accounts, terms of office.  These are all reasonable requirements to ensure any organisation is well run, and hold true in any part of the world.  
> 
> The other aim is to control what chapters do.  This needs to be much more carefully worded, or simply eliminated.  I'm not sure any detail about chapter activity is required, and may be counter-productive.  The more detail in the document, the more chance the details won't work in certain countries.  I think it sufficient to merely require a chapter's constitution support the aims of the Internet Society, then leave it to each chapter to work out how.  When I drafted the Irish constitution, I simply took the central website aims into the constitution, while also ensuring maximum freedom for the chapter.  I also ensured the central office could review the constitution and recommend changes before it was finalised.  This should be enough for ISOC.
> 
> I took the aims from the website and added them to the Irish chapter constitution as follows:
> ------------------------
> 2.	The main object for which the Company is established is to develop and operate an Irish Chapter of the Internet Society (hereafter referred to as “ISOC”) and to implement the policies and pursue the objectives of ISOC within the Republic of Ireland.
> 3.	The following objects set out hereafter are exclusively subsidiary and ancillary to the main object set out above and these objects are to be used only for the attainment of that main object and any income generated therefrom is to be applied for the main object only.
> a.	Facilitate and promote global, regional, and local policy environments that enable the continuing evolution of an open Internet.
> b.	Increase the global relevance and recognition of collaborative, bottom-up, technical, consensus-based open standards development in order to protect permissionless innovation for the availability of the open Internet for current and future users; and increase development and use of security and resiliency technologies and best practices, shape the evolution of online identity infrastructures, and improve choice and consent in the handling of user data.
> c.	Provide equal development opportunities for all people by promoting the relevance, deployment, and adoption of the open Internet.
> d.	Increase the visibility and influence of ISOC as the recognized, trusted source on Internet issues
> e.	To improve and develop the ISOC organization. 
> f.	 Create an environment that allows ISOC to use the Internet to gather real data and experiences, and delivers messages and tools to our audiences.
> g.	Mobilize and energize staff, emerging leaders, past and present ISOC Members, and other identified ISOC stakeholders to leverage and expand ISOC outreach on an inclusive local, regional, and global scale to advance our mission.
> h.	Nurture a culture that mirrors the Internet attributes we wish to emulate—a team-oriented culture that values openness/inclusivity, global and cultural diversity, honesty, trust and collaboration. To be focused, forward thinking, flexible and dynamic within an environment where decision-making is transparent and accountability is maintained.
> 
> 
> 
> 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: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 02 August 2017 13:58
> To: brandt.dainow at gmail.com
> Cc: Alan Levin; Joyce Dogniez; ISOC Chapter Delegates; chapter-support at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement
> 
> A specific comment inline:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:08 PM, 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.
> 
> Very pertinent observation. In India, it would get Chapters in a dangerous situation. First of all, speaking for the India Chennai Chapter alone, I would NOT agree at all to any expectations of lobbying for any position by ISOC. What we do at Chennai is to broadly understand the Internet Society's mission, which we agree with fully, and work ON OUR OWN, in our own ways, independently on position and projects that would further the evolution of the Internet along the lines. Drop the idea of expecting Chapters to lobby for positions that invariably emerge mostly from Staff deliberations.
> 
> --- Sivasubramanain M
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170815/7d181895/attachment.htm>