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

Wed Dec 12 10:47:33 PST 2018

We expect a reduction of about 60% in our membership due the the opt-in
campaign. We have done an affirmative action to contact those that have not
opted-in as of last week. I have not seen the final results but I do not
expect more than 10 more people to opt-in.

The way I see our membership (now 850+) varies. There are some that do not
care about being active in the Chapter but I know that they like to be
abreast of Internet issues and such so from time to time we get questions
asked or they come to our events. These are the ones that I consider the
listeners. Others (the very few) are there to see what they can get from
the organization. Like for example: grants to participate in meetings and
other events, ISOC grants, etc. And the rest most probably do not care
about the chapter and ISOC at all. These last ones are the ones that I
think do not care to opt-in.

In my experience, when we send a call to volunteers for whatever we need
help with, there are always new people that come forward. So I know people
are at least listening when we communicate with them.

I agree with Susannah that our members get confused between what is ISOC
and ISOC - the local Chapter - when they keep getting emails from both,
many times with the same information. Is time to coordinate this
communication somehow. Maybe the Advisory Committee can suggest something
about this.

-ed

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:00 AM Satish Babu <sb at inapp.com> wrote:

> I agree with Brandt on the question of who should bear the primary
> responsibility for the quality and quantity of membership: the local
> Chapter or the central organization?
>
> IMO, the local Chapter has much more to do with these aspects than the
> ISOC HQ. After the post-GDPR membership fall, it is interesting to note
> that the retention rate varies widely between Chapters...I don't have the
> figures handy, but I recall figures varying from 30% to 80% retention
> amongst Chapters. Given that the role of the HQ is the same across the
> board, what would explain this variation? I would suspect it is largely the
> Chapter's level of engagement with its members.
>
> Personally, I would maintain that the reduced number of members is more
> sustainable than a membership count that includes deadwood. The real
> question is how many of the current (reduced) membership would actively
> participate in policy discussions, and how we can increase this number.
>
> With kind regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> satish
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:15 PM Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +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.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20181212/becf58f8/attachment.htm>