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

[Brandt Dainow]

+1 – we have the same problem in Ireland as Dave mentions – most of our “members” are inactive.  However, as Ireland only has 4 million people, our total membership is less than 70, so we struggle to get enough people for a quorum for the AGM.

 

I am not sure how common this problem is.  The fact there are two levels of formal procedures for what to do with a chapter which has collapsed through inactivity suggests this is a common problem.  If so, it seems to me that ISOC should be focusing on gaining active membership through a formal policy and program, to the same degree as it puts energy into achieving it’s goals.  However, the failure of initiatives to make the society more democratic suggests that leadership do not take membership participation as seriously as many chapter delegates.  I think there are two issues here.  Firstly, senior leadership has no contact at all with ordinary members – there are no webcasts, no policy or other leadership letters, no forums for ordinary members to question them, not even something as basic as a regular newsletter.  I administer a tiny 300 member professional body in Ireland, and even they manage to produce two printed magazines per year, so ISOC should be able to do something to communicate with members.  Secondly, and I think more importantly, members are irrelevant to ISOC funding.  So, in the end, it doesn’t make any difference to ISOC leadership how many members chapters have or how active they are.  In fact, ISOC could have no members and still get funding, maintain staff, and achieve many of its goals.  In this respect, members are nice to have, but not very important.

 

It seems to me ISOC membership is in a void between a (weak) desire by leadership to have members and an unwillingness to make the changes required to give them a meaningful role.  As a result, nothing serious is done to improve the membership situation.

 

It is impossible for ISOC to be a “bottom-up multi-stakeholder organization" with its existing structure and constitution.  Efforts to change either of these have been blocked by upper levels of staff and leadership.  I have no evidence why, as these decisions are taken in private and not disclosed.  This secrecy is, itself, a symptom of the problem.  However, it is self-evident that the changes would require a substantial reduction in the power of top-level leadership, much more scrutiny of staff activity, and a big change in finances (for example, ISOC spends more on staff travel than is given to all the chapters globally).  Given that ISOC will continue to get its funding without these changes, what motivation exists for any changes by those with the power to make those changes?

 

ON THE OTHER HAND:

ISOC is very generous with funding.  It works hard to make funding available, to communicate and encourage people to access it.  I am sure many of you have experience of making funding applications, and I am sure you have found ISOC the easiest to work with in this respect.   So, while we may like ISOC to be more democratic and put more effort into membership, there is nothing to stop chapters from getting funds for their own membership drives, or funding activities which can encourage more active participation.

 

Absent a serious and global push for fundamental changes in ISOC structure, I therefore recommend chapters focus on getting better membership themselves, and not look to the central organisation.

 

 

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

brandt.dainow at gmail.com

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burstein
Sent: 11 December 2018 23:02
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] How many members do we have?

 

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.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20181212/3df6db19/attachment.htm>