[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Accountability: a response to a message on the thread of making ISOC multi-stakeholder, with the subject line renamed.

Fri Mar 30 06:37:07 PDT 2018

Dear Brandt,

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Brandt Dainow <brandt.dainow at gmail.com>
wrote:

While ISOC has been successful, we do not know if the current structure has
> contributed to that success, or if ISOC could have been more successful if
> member-driven.
>

Agreed. We can not possibly deny that ICANN would be more successful nor
assert that it would be less successful in a member-driven scenario. What I
said was that it worked.

>
>
> While I agree with Dave completely, the reality is giving members control
> is contrary to the founding documents and formal structure of ISOC.  ISOC
> is not, and never has been, a community of members, or democratic.  It is a
> Trust, organised around managing a perpetual flow of income.  Members do
> not contribute to that income, and are therefore powerless.  Article V.1
> states “Individual members shall not have any voting rights with respect to
> the Society.”
>

The founding documents probably did not anticipate ISOC to take shape as a
Community with several hundred 'volunteers' of good Technical and Policy
expertise. ISOC unwittingly imparts the impression of a Community driven
organization, and it is this perception that renders credibility to ISOC's
policy advice.

> V.6 makes it clear staff report to the board, not members.
>

With apologies, if not the present and recent Boards of Trustees,  at
least some of the members of some of the past BoT have not been
hierarchically at the Top.

>
>
> ISOC is run by a board of 15 Trustees, but can reduce that board to just 3
> people.  So long as they don’t break the constitution or law, they can do
> what they like.
>

Who are 'they' ?  Staff ?  There are qualified, respectable and competent
staff, at present and in the past, but there is not appropriate that the
constitution of the Board of Trustees depend on Staff who are actually to
report to the BoT.

>   Only 4 are elected by members, another 4 by chapter leaders, 4 are
> appointed by IETF, and the board can put another 3 people in by itself.  So
> the constitution itself prohibits members ever being able to elect enough
> trustees to have any dominating control. The board is not obliged to
> explain its decisions to us, nor offer any form of appeal against
> decisions.
>

I don't see too much of an imbalance here.

> Such a situation can only be changed if at least 80% of the board want to
> change it.  Effectively, this would require IETF to decide to give up its
> own influence.
>

IETF does not have to 'give up' its influence, it only needs to address
the question of finding a way to make the Internet Society 'more'
Community driven, and to make the Internet Society accountable as an
organization and to make the constituents of the Internet Society
(Chapters, Members, Trustees, Organizations and Staff) accountable.

>
>
> While I would love to see a truly democratic, member-driven ISOC, I think
> we members should recognise our power is limited.  In the absence of
> statements calling for fundamental reform of the organisation by the board
> of trustees, and leadership from the top, members should understand nothing
> is going to change.  The board has decided to allocate a small percentage
> of income to funding local chapters, equal to roughly half the annual
> travel budget for staff.  We have no constitutional right to this, and
> therefore we should be grateful for this gift.  We should accept that we
> have no power, and be grateful for our local funding, and focus on local
> initiatives where we do have power.  In this area, ISOC are liberal in
> terms of allowing chapters to spend the money as they see fit, and with
> minimal reporting requirements.
>
ISOC has a history of not keeping members.  I strongly urge people to
> abandon any attempt to change how ISOC is run – it won’t work and you’ll
> get frustrated and leave, depriving us all of your valuable intelligence
> and motivation.  I therefore urge you to focus on SIG’s and local chapters,
> where you have a good chance of success in your endeavours.
>

There are some hurdles to be overcome with respect to the historical
limitations arising out of the present constitution of ISOC, yet,  I feel
that even Staff would not see it as so bleak a scenario. There are aspects
of an Accountability exercise that would actually appeal to Staff.

Sivasubramanian M

>
>
>
>
> 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 *sivasubramanian muthusamy
> *Sent:* 29 March 2018 14:23
> *To:* Dave Burstein
> *Cc:* ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Bringing Multistakeholder to ISOC: The
> first task of our New Collaborative Governance Project
>
>
>
> Dear Dave,
>
>
>
> Dear Dave,
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with EVERYTHING that you say here on the stakeholder driven
> approach. At the same time, the Internet Society has worked in a certain
> style, and has broadly preserved the Internet Model, has broadly succeeded
> in working with Governments and other stakeholders. While there is a strong
> basis for discussing improvements, it is also necessary to understand that
> in ways are easily seen or appreciated, ISOC has done well.
>
>
>
> Any exercise in redefining the way ISOC works needs to remember that ISOC
> has done well.  Such an exercise ought not to be entirely dismissive of the
> present style of working. A part of this style, an element of this style is
> also needed to be retained, while making ISOC "stakeholder-driven, open,
> transparent and consensus-driven" in your words.
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
> twitter.com/shivaindia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
>
> Folks
>
> We all know decisions in ISOC remain top down, despite at least six years
> of effort to make ISOC multistakeholder. I therefore urge the new ISOC
> Collaborative Governance Project to set its first goal to bring these
> principles to ISOC before we tell others what to do.
>
> It's led by Larry Strickling, who is one of the most effective people in
> D.C. He can make things happen. Sally has urged us to join the call in
> about an hour, and I hope I'm not the only one to speak up.
>
> Here is our definition of multi-stakeholder and suggested ways we can
> implement it.
>
> ·        *Stakeholder-driven: *Stakeholders determine the process and
> decisions, from agenda setting to workflow, rather than simply fulfilling
> an advisory role;
>
> Let's see if we, the stakeholders, can direct this process to first
> improving ISOC.
>
> ·        *Open: *Any stakeholder may participate and the process includes
> and integrates the viewpoints of a diverse range of stakeholders;
>
> A diverse range of viewpoints would be great. Until recently, our home
> page called for "like-minded people." The first step should be allowing
> comments on the ISOC blog and web site articles and welcome blog
> submissions from people in the chapters.
>
> As we know, the Internet community has a strong North-South split, the
> U.S. and allies against the BRICs and most of the rest of the world. Many
> Internet users, in my opinion a majority, believe that decisions about the
> Internet that are not dominated by the U.S. and allies.
>
> Larry, who is in charge here, has a chance to prove he can rise above his
> role in the U.S. government. He was co-leader of the U,S, WCIT delegation
> that walked out of the leading International meeting when we didn't get our
> way.
>
> ·        *Transparent: *All stakeholders and the public have access to
> deliberations, creating an environment of trust, legitimacy, and
> accountability; and
>
> Please, please, bring this to ISOC. The most important decision in recent
> ISOC history, the Chapters Committee proposal to give the chapters some
> funding and independence, was turned down in a closed session of the board.
> Very ugly. 3% of out budget is not very much but would make a difference.
>
> Another crucial improvement would be to provide information about our
> donors. We know that has been a factor in deciding what ISOC addresses but
> someone made a policy we should not report our funders.
>
> It would also be good if we were more honest, starting with our home page
> figures for members and chapters. About half the claimed chapters are
> defunct.
>
> ·        *Consensus-based: *Outcomes are consensus-based, arrived at by
> compromise, and are a win-win for the greatest number or diversity of
> stakeholders.
>
> Starting with what the Collaborative Governance Project addresses. It
> seems to already have an agenda made by the staff.
>
> In particular, we should make sure the current choice of a new President
> is consensus driven. One prominent candidate has been strongly opposed by
> many on this chapter-delegates list but I believe is still under
> consideration. Unless he can show he supports more chapter power in making
> ISOC decisions, he would not have a chance at being a consensus choice.
> -------------
>
> When I say things like this, I always get emails with strong support.
> Kathy, Raul, and the board should look closely at why others won't speak
> publicly. A first step would be a strong statement that chapter funding is
> not dependent on agreeing with management.
>
> In addition, the CEO should immediately make a clear statement that
> publicly disagreeing with the official position will not impeded a
> staffer's career. I've known Kathy for many years to be a person of good
> faith, but the consistently "like-minded" public comments from staff
> suggest they don't see it that way.
>
> All my opinions, of course.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Editor, http://Fastnet.news http://wirelessone.news
> http://massivemimo.rocks gfastnews.com
>
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M
Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20180330/e283c338/attachment.htm>