[Chapter-delegates] How many members do we have?

[Adebunmi AKINBO]

Dave,
Clearly, your chapter needs a rejuvenation exercise. Thanks for admitting
it.

Some countries meet annually (online and face2face) and it would be
erroneous to assume that we are all the same.

I recall discussing with Kathy at various fora on the need to monitor and
support chapter growth and development.

By the way,  Andrew is correct that "an admittedly smaller list of
confirmed and clearly engaged members" is currently engaged. Hi else did we
get the awards and accolades for a chapter thon project globally.

With that said, New York is not part of the 75% Active Chapter...far from
it. The rest of the world needs to understand that a few active hands is
stronger in moving us in the right direction.

We need to move as one to ensure that we reach the unconnected and the less
privileged. If Kathy feels it's right to have a 'bottom-up
multistakeholder' approach, I strongly believe that what obtains now is
what we agreed to do to move in the right direction.

We all have a right but we need to understand the semantics involved.
Besides all that, you are here to ensure we get the radios and 5g to any
part of the globe and not just Africa.

10kobo is enough at the moment.

Akinbo.


On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 12:02 am Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com wrote:

> All
>
> Andrew notes, accurately, that ISOC's membership should not have been
> claimed we had 110,000 members.
>
> *The figure was prominently on our home page, however. *Those closely
> involved in ISOC always knew it was inaccurate, but refused to take it off
> the home page even after it was brought up and discussed at the top. ISOC
> used the claim in advocacy.
>
> The home page also said ISOC was "a trusted source." Trust needs to be
> earned, not claimed.
>
> All of us want to be proud of what ISOC is accomplishing. We share the
> powerful human trait of "confirmation bias." It is very hard for anyone to
> listen to what disagrees with one's own beliefs, including that a group we
> are part of is to be admired.
>
> ISOC, almost all of us agree, can and should be doing more to bring a
> great Internet to everyone. (We disagree on how to do that, of course.)
>
> To be effective, we need to look honestly at what we are doing. In
> practice, those raising problems were told, "you're shouldn't be so
> negative," often attacked and shot down.
>
> I'm still here, because I believe ISOC, with a $30M/year subsidy from
> .org, has the potential to be the most powerful *pro-consumer* force on
> the net. But I've watched for several years as those who agreed, and
> supported issues like more chapter funding got burned out and left.
>
> I knew Kathy for years as one of the most progressive in D.C. circles and
> expected her to do much more. I know several of the board members to be
> hardworking, articulate, concerned, and of good faith. I know the same is
> true of Andrew.
>
> Can we be honest with ourselves and do better? 75% of the Internet is not
> in the U.S., Western Europe, and allies. China alone is 40% and their
> achievements remarkable. (344M have fiber home connections.) I am not naive
> about the Chinese government, but we can never be truly effective
> organizing the Internet without including them, as well as the many others
> not well-represented here.
> ------------
>
> Unfortunately, Andrew is wrong that we now have
>
> an admittedly smaller list of confirmed and clearly engaged members.
>>
>
> I wish that were true. But I know in New York the majority of our
> "members" are nothing more than people who have agreed to be on a mailing
> list. I don't think we've had a meeting with even 75 of our "2,500" members
> in at least the last 5 years. The maximum number of people who have done *anything
> at all* is perhaps 400, and very few of them are "clearly engaged."
>
> Which I, Andrew, and many others are working to improve.
>
> Dave
> (Who would much rather be discussing the right radios for rural Africa or
> the unhyped prospects of 5G, rather than wasting time in what should be
> unneeded organizational problems. If we become the "bottom-up
> multi-stakeholder organization" Kathy wanted us to be, we would be doing a
> much better job delivering what we all believe in.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181212/8ff2e215/attachment.htm>