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

Thu Dec 13 09:52:45 PST 2018

Hi John,

On 12/12/2018 19:22, John More wrote:
> Susannah
>
> ISOC’s wealth of funding, which allows it to avoid the hard work of 
> individual fundraising = contacting and soliciting, is actually a 
> negative for creating an effective and engaged membership.

- Sure, but again we have to be careful with messaging here and making 
sure that the separation/relationship between ISOC and the Chapters is 
clear.

If ISOC is contacting Chapter members asking for donations (which was 
done last year) and Chapters are also asking them for donations, things 
may appear a bit disjointed.

As noted on this mailing list at the time, I was not in support of ISOC 
soliciting donations from members of my Chapter as I am of the opinion 
that if members are going to donate, they should donate to their local 
Chapter. I still stand by this because as you note, ISOC has a wealth of 
funding and really doesn't need that $50 that someone might throw their 
way.

>
> Further, receiving multiple communications from ISOC and the Chapters 
> may be bothersome, but if the communications have a different purpose 
> and are clearly indicated as to the source.

- Agreed. I wonder if perhaps the Chapter logo identities are now too 
similar to the ISOC identity for people to really be able to instantly 
identify the source.

>  Planned Parenthood and other activist groups have multiple layers of 
> communications.  It creates an more engaged membership.

- I'm not sure I'd class ISOC as an activist group though!

As a communications professional, I'd be interested to understand more 
about what you mean by multiple layers of communications (off list to 
spare everyone's inbox and sanity ;) ).

Cheers,

Susannah

—
Susannah Gray
President
San Francisco Bay Area Internet Society Chapter
www.sfbayisoc.org

>
> John
>
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Susannah Gray <susannah.gray at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:susannah.gray at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 12/12/2018 02:26, John More 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.
>> - I agree that communication from ISOC could be improved. However, I 
>> do not feel that ISOC should be sending out more communication to 
>> members as care needs to be taken to avoid confusion and mixed 
>> messages as people are already unsure of the split between ISOC and 
>> the Chapters.
>
> All that says is that ISOC needs to do a better job communicating 
> those differences — in part by underlining what ISOC does and what its 
> relationship with the 40,000 members is.
>>>
>>> Sharp contrast with international organizations, like Greenpeace, 
>>> Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch.
>>
>> - Greenpeace is fully funded by individuals (it does not accept 
>> donations from corporations) so it needs to maintain a constant 
>> dialogue with its members, which is not the case with ISOC.
>>
>
> But that is the whole point. ISOC does need to communicate better with 
> its members. Otherwise why does it list them as organizing tools. 
>  Should say ISOC has 40,000 members, _______? of whom are engaged 
> through Chapters, but most of whom are just names.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> - The San Francisco Bay Area ISOC Chapter sends out newsletters every 
>> couple of weeks (using MailerLite) to its members and updates its 
>> website regularly with snippets of news - it's not a hard/time 
>> consuming task. The AMS is not the best tool for this but it does the 
>> job and it is free for all the Chapters.
>>
>> I think rather than ISOC upping its communication to the general 
>> membership it might need to direct/assist Chapter leaders more with 
>> their communications needs. While I wholeheartedly support the bottom 
>> up, multistakeholder ethos, I believe some general direction is 
>> needed by many of the Chapters in terms of the kind of general 
>> Internet-related news and issues they should be informing their 
>> members about and the tools that can help them do it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Susannah
>>
>> —
>> Susannah Gray
>> President
>> San Francisco Bay Area Internet Society Chapter
>> www.sfbayisoc.org
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>     anadmittedly 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181213/92808611/attachment.htm>