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

Wed Dec 12 07:49:20 PST 2018

Hi Nadira. 

Very good comments, as always. 

> El 12 dic. 2018, a las 04:20, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> All,
> Another aspect of reach to the interested active members at the local chapters is not to limit the chapter empowerment programs to the chapters officers, particularly whom has been in the same positions for years. 

Good point 

> 
> ISOC with its regional bureaus particularly after the exercise of confirmed members should change its approach of disseminating its communication about its call of project grants and empowerment programs to the Chapter officers who filters what reaches to their members and act as the bottle cork. 
> 

Yes, it looks like in some cases, chapters’ members don’t get all the information. We should change that. As I said in a previous email, this should not be just the work of a few, but of all of us. 
Several of our programs are already open to chapter members in general and not just to leaders. And we have also restriction to become a fellow for the regional workshops, etc. in order to favor the rotation of the people who benefit from those fellowships.
Some baby steps have been already taken. 

> ISOC does have great grant programs, I really wonder how many of the grassroots members of the chapters know that project proposals can be stemmed and submitted directly by chapter members after the approval of the chapter officers? If active members know that,  or if empowerment and capacity building program reach to them directly one expect this will increase their interest and their puropse of being an ISOC member.
> 

In fact, a high percentage of the projects that are submitted for example, to Beyond the Net, are already projects that come from chapters members or other community players, and not only from chapter leaders. I can’t say that it happens everywhere in the same way, but it is already happening 

I think we agree on several of your points. 

Raúl 

> These are my 2 cents 
> Nadira AL-Araj 
> Writing as an independent member 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 04:26 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> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4094 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20181212/bca928bc/attachment.p7s>