[Chapter-delegates] Revised Chapter Agreement

[Winthrop Yu]

   +1

   Understanding that there is no "best time" for turnover and that one should 
continuously work on leadership development, this is still an interative 
process. You could get a number of items that Alejandro mentioned right, e.g. 
day job/time commitment, policy alighment, avoding conflicts of interest, etc., 
and still wind-up with a combination that stalls momentum.

   Also agree with substance (function) over form. Not that we'd had any major 
problems with "parachuting" (yet), but better policy support and coordination 
with local chapters will always be useful.

WYn
ISOC-PH


On 9/6/2017 2:13 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> clearly Chapter officials rotation is not an easy proposition. We go 
> through several generations in the formation of new leaders before some 
> are ready, available, and clear of conflicts for time with their day 
> jobs, as well as conflicts of interest such as working for government in 
> Internet policy-making fields, having clients whose needs in litigation 
> may be at variance with ISOC's positions, and so on. Other than a general 
> call for renewal any crisp-set rules are bound to clash with reality.
> 
> The need to incorporate new perspectives and people in leadership must 
> be strengthened internally in the chapter. Otherwise too many incentives 
> are created for intervention and manipulation by ISOC mid-level staff, 
> who can play games with resources, choose favorites, enter into blame 
> games, and on the other hand lose sight of the difficulties and failures 
> of the leadership they choose to support.
> 
> Now let's for a minute imagine an ISOC that was built as a federation 
> of  independently founded societies, as indeed is the case for a few of 
> the older chapters (and also is a little bit with some new ones, whose 
> members are simultaneously members in some other local organization such 
> as a trade association or an NGO.) What would we agree with a central 
> administration and representation that we created?
> 
> We would put substance first, not form. One egregious disrespect that 
> continues to happen is that ISOC delegations arrive at international 
> events, such as those in the ITU's global and regional processes, 
> without due advance coordination with the local chapter. To their 
> surprise, the local Chapter is all over, invited by the local host, 
> participating in consultations and even drafting documents... all on 
> their own, and not being able to be decisive enough because the "party 
> line" remains unknown. Ditto for ICANN, IGF WSIS Forum and so on. 
> Further ditto for the processes where governments are taking their stuff 
> away from multistakeholder mechanisms altogether. There is an asymmetry 
> of trust that is hurtful to all parties in the long run. 
> > Re-balancing the HQ/Central-Chapter relationship will take much more work
> than just refining the Charter's provisions for managing Chapters 
> internally.
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> _______________________________________________