[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 06:40:23 PDT 2018

sent again with some typographical corrections inline:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 I
> SOC 
> 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
> it 
> 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-boun
>> ces 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
>
>

-- 
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/20180330/2175e000/attachment.htm>