[Chapter-delegates] ​Progress for chapters

[Dave Burstein]

All
I’m very glad to report that after Sunday the Board and the Chapters
Committee are moving forward. Any earlier reports are superseded. Board
Chair Gonzalo Camarillo asked Avri to let everyone know all remains under
discussion.

This is about the chapters taking a greater role in ISOC decision making
and having the resources to support that. I believe chapters know more
about whether to spend funds on event space or an office in a shared
workspace. Chapters should decide whether an African Union broadband event
or an IGF will be more productive. I believe ISOC should be more bottom up
whenever practical.

Let’s make it so. The below is only interesting to those actively involved
so freely skip.

Please all speak up,
against or for
the proposal. It will make a difference if a few of you take the time to
send a short note to the board members or the chair. (Gonzalo - Don’t worry
about being swamped. Not that many members are interested in ISOC
procedures,)

Bring your thoughts directly to this list; most of the key people in ISOC
read it. (Please be thoughtful and stick to the issues.)

It’s time for me to say less and others to speak up. I wrote strongly to
get things moving but that makes me less effective going forward. Many of
the proposals will indirectly bring ISOC closer to policies advocated by
the Global South; please jump in.

The proposal last spring asked the board to allocate ~3% of the ISOC budget
for the chapters to spend on their activities. Depending on the allocation
formula, that would be $15,000-$50,000 per active chapter.

It also makes the chapters responsible for making more of their own
decisions and provides for a partner role for the chapters in ISOC
decisions and activities.

The board was initially very supportive but asked the chapters committee to
make a concrete proposal. A working group spent many hours over six months
doing so, which was approved by the full committee.

It’s not perfect but I think it’s close enough to be quickly approved and
implemented. Improvements wanted, but we already delayed over a year.

Much of this is about showing basic respect for the people in the chapters.
Providing that respect is sure to be far more effective than spending
millions on “branding.” 3% of the total budget is far less than we spend on
“communication,” “branding,” and the like.

Strong chapters will make a much stronger ISOC.

The chapters committee proposal had four main concerns, as I read it.



That the chapters have an (extremely modest) share of ISOC's budget to
support this work. ~3% just isn't that much. Careful review to avoid fraud
was included. So were sensible guidelines on how the money should be spent.

Of course some of the money will be wasted among the ~50 chapters, perhaps
allocated to a few people who do little work in return. We currently waste
far more. We almost certainly spend more "supervising" and "administering"
than the funds that actually go to chapters. Counting staff time, it sure
appears that we spend far more than $1,500 on administering a $1,500 grant.
We have good, honorable people but the system is taking over 50% of the
money intended for chapters. Wasteful.


I'm confident that overall the chapters will deliver more value for money
than the current system.



That the chapters should make their own decisions on most things, listening
thoughtfully to the opinions of the rest of the group. I'm confident the
result will be overwhelmingly positive. Center or the board can take action
if this is seriously abused.



People on the ground almost always know more than those thousands of miles
away and from a different
​ culture​
. T
​he​
ISOC
​ staffers​
are hardworking and capable, but the bureaucracy has grown to cost more
than is spent on the actual work. They are good people who can do more for
our mission doing other things in the organization.



That the chapters be consulted on decisions whenever practical. (Agreed,
sometimes there isn't time.) That was inspired by a comment from a chapter
that they hadn't even discovered ISOC people had visited their government
until after they had left the country.

A simple one paragraph note to this list often will be all this takes.
Perhaps, “This ISOC team will be meeting with the xxx government on yyy.
Connect with us freely.” That takes five minutes, should be an informal
requirement from the CEO to all staff. If things get involved that means
people in the chapter feel deeply. That’s a good thing.



I believe exclusively top down decision making is a mistake for ISOC, not
least because we urge others to be “bottom-up multistakeholder.” Kathy has
done a good job of getting suggestions on things like position papers, but
decisions remain exclusively made by staff. I believe the chapters will be
much more supportive of ISOC staff and policies they help decide.



​For example, ​o
n grants, we have been told we can't even know who is in the group making
the
​(often political) ​
decisions, much less have one representative in the room.
​There are many examples of similar disrespect, not partnership.​



That the chapters be supported and encouraged to make the global standards
and governance process more multistakeholder/representative. I was in the
room when the ITU Secretary-General reminded our CEO that we can send as
many delegates as we want to ITU meetings and encouraged us to do so. (Some
delegations are 50 and even 100 strong.)  We can and should have volunteers
on each ITU standards study group and reporting back.

Except for IETF, we have virtually no presence where standards are decided.
Even in ITU, we sometimes attend the big policy events but I’ve never seen
ISOC at the study groups that make the standards.

Even more important is a strong presence where the key decisions about the
Internet are made. In particular, 3GPP wireless decisions have an enormous
effect on the cost of access. 3GPP are technically brilliant but often
inappropriate for much of the world. It’s entirely corporate and often
ignores the public interest on issues like reasonable royalties and fair
sharing of spectrum with Wi-Fi. I focus on royalties and other cost factors
because inexpensive cell phones are by far the most important way the
Internet can be brought to everyone. I am sure many of you have different
concerns and should be empowered to bring them forward.

​ISOC signed the Open Standards statement and I believe share my belief
they be truly open. We need to bring those ideals to the actual standards
group and make things happen. Time to make it so.


=======================

The staff response points to (valuable) things center has been doing for
the chapters, which are welcome. However, It does not move us forward on
the proposals from the chapters in a significant way. It doesn’t provide
funds, even 1%, for the chapters to allocate or give the chapters a greater
say in decision making. Since it doesn’t accept most of the chapter
proposals, I called it a rejection.

Some people disagreed with the term. The staff proposal points to many
things *they* have done in the name of chapters, many valuable
. Some reached for similar goals.
It explains why they believe a few of the proposals are a mistake. Call
it what you will; it did very little on the specific proposals.


Dave




​
-- 
Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW 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/20170606/0793398d/attachment.htm>