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

[Shuli Hallak]

John,

Well said. 

I would add that creating and maintaining chapter support from the top is a delicate balance but based on my experience here I would suggest empowering chapters with efficient tools. Maybe some of these already exist and we / I don’t know about them. 

Such as:
— website templates (Wordpress or other)
— newsletter templates
— box accounts
— zoom accounts
— event training
— legal document templates (if possible)
— guidance on creating membership tiers if chapters would like two create paid memberships 

etc.

The idea being not to re-invent the wheel if we don’t have to and to help chapters continue helping themselves

Shuli
(NY Chapter)


> On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:26 PM, John More <morej1 at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Dave
> 
> Much of what you say is correct. Even while working to strengthen the Chapter structure and bringing more accountability, I have always taken the position that ISOC should not claim to be a “membership” organization in that it has never done anything to create an effective, connected membership. I have been a member for years.  I have even given made the $75 contribution.  Nothing.  No regular communications are sent from ISOC, only from the Chapter.  There is no solicitation of donations, there are no calls to action, there are virtually no communications unless you sign onto a specific e-list of project.
> 
> Sharp contrast with international organizations, like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch.
> 
> A friend who had been with the Physicians for Social Responsibility came out of retirement to lead The Rachel Carson Council.  He has re-energized and increased the membership by soliciting, sending newsletters, asking for activism, creating intern training programs and college campus councils — all to engage in environmental justice activism.
> 
> ISOC needs more this.  And it does not require hiring consultants.
> 
> The only caveat I have with what you say is that you love broadsides and are rarely willing to admit where things are happening.
> 
> But your point is well taken.
> 
> John More
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 6:01 PM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com <mailto: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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20181212/275726b9/attachment.htm>