[Chapter-delegates] The results of the recent polls regarding two issues from the Puerto Rico Chapter and the proposed test for transmission to the BoT.

[Winthrop Yu]

+1 Sivas. I'd earlier commented on voting reminders -- a reminder was sent on 
Tuesday the 26th (after Olivier had informed us of the on-going vote/survey), a 
week after the ballots are said to have been sent out and just days before the 
deadline. Previously, Chapters would have heard about any vote/survey/call 
multiple times via different channels. There are also other relevant comments 
regarding this process.

In the actual event, the deadline was not extended, and there were at least 2 
chapters complaining about not having received their ballots on the day of the 
deadline itself. Yet, there is this assumption that of the 101 Chapters with 
"the right to vote", that *all* of them did in fact receive ballots and were in 
fact able to exercise that right.

We should certainly strive to do better next time,

WYn
PH


On 6 Jul 2024 11:40 PM, Sivasubramanian M via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>
> It may also be desirable to verify if the vote information and link were 
> mailed to the current President/ voting delegates. In other words, is the 
> voter database up-to-date? Also, are Chapers reached by more than one 
> communication channel, for instance, by alternate email addresses / phone / 
> whatsapp in addition to email?
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul, 2024, 20:37 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates, 
> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     Dear Frédéric,
>
>     thanks for your kind follow-up. Whilst I do not believe we are engaging in
>     politics, the aim of the transparency was to see whether all votes were
>     taken into account by the system.
>
>     A fallback scenario would be to just publish the list of Chapters who have
>     voted without publishing their actual vote, so Chapter Chairs can check
>     that their Chapter AC delegate has cast their vote and the vote has been
>     taken into account. That's quite basic and I do not think will lead to the
>     horse trading which you allude to in your email.
>
>     Kindest regards,
>
>     Olivier
>
>
>     On 05/07/2024 22:24, Frédéric Taes wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Olivier, Cheryl and all,
>>
>>     Thank you, Cheryl, for the good organization. It’s a pity that only about
>>     the half of chapters voted, despite reminders. :-(
>>
>>     I understand the request from Olivier about transparency, however I would
>>     find abnormal to disclose who voted on what (or didn’t) for two reasons:
>>
>>      1. It should have to be communicated beforehand that content of votes
>>         would be made public, and not after the votes;
>>         the principle should be privacy by default and, if disclosed,
>>         properly communicated beforehand and/or with consent;
>>
>>      2. What’s the purpose of this level of transparency? Which actions would
>>         you take if you see that chapter X didn’t voted, or voted against
>>         your proposal?
>>         There’s a risk to misuse the info to make pressure or to start
>>         political alliances; a fictive example: your UK chapter will vote for
>>         my proposal on topic X (and I’ll check you did!), and in return my
>>         chapter would vote UK proposal on another topic (even if we
>>         disagree), OK? ;-)
>>
>>     Additional remarks:
>>
>>       * what about Special Interest Groups (SIG)? They have no right to vote,
>>         no right to have their voice heard, only observer’s role. I don’t
>>         find this normal.
>>
>>       * how to interpret the absence of vote? Is it saying the topic is not
>>         important, like saying no? I’m not sure. My guess: mailing lists are
>>         not effective or not read, important messages are lost in the mass or
>>         marked as spam,… I would suggest a dedicated “read-only” channel for
>>         votes and important communications, and discussions in another channel.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Frédéric.
>>
>>     PS to Olivier and Eduardo: I well voted in name of Belgium Chapter, and
>>     not against any proposal. :-)  I love community spirit    (and yes I
>>     don’t like politics).
>>
>>     *De : *Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
>>     <mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> au nom de Olivier MJ
>>     Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>     <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>     *Répondre à : *Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
>>     *Date : *vendredi 5 juillet 2024 à 20:16
>>     *À : *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>,
>>     <0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com>
>>     <mailto:0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com>,
>>     ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>     <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>     *Objet : *Re: [Chapter-delegates] The results of the recent polls
>>     regarding two issues from the Puerto Rico Chapter and the proposed test
>>     for transmission to the BoT.
>>
>>     Dear Cheryl,
>>
>>     thank you for forwarding this information and following up on these polls.
>>     In the interest of transparency would you please forward the results
>>     showing chapters having voted and their vote? I note that nowhere in the
>>     Chapter AC rules is there any mention of consensus calls needing to be
>>     confidential.
>>     Kindest regards,
>>
>>     Olivier
>>
>>     On 05/07/2024 00:28, Cheryl Langdon-Orr via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>>
>>         The message you find attached outlines the procedures and results of
>>         the poll conducted by the Chapters Advisory Council (ChAC) of the
>>         Internet Society, conducted via Survey Monkey between June 17th and
>>         July 1st, and aimed to gather support for two proposals from the
>>         Puerto Rico Chapter among the 101 Chapters with voting rights. The
>>         first proposal was to open the Chapter Delegate email list to all
>>         Chapter Members as observers, while the second was to reinstate
>>         funding for the ISOC LIVE video and archiving services.
>>
>>         The results showed that while a majority of responding Chapters
>>         supported both proposals, the required level of support for approval
>>         required by the ChAC Rules and Procedures for sending advice to the
>>         Board of Trustees still needs to be reached. Specifically, 66.04%
>>         voted in favour of the first proposal, and for the second, 88.68%
>>         voted in favour. However, due to the rules requiring a majority of
>>         all eligible Chapters to vote 'yes,' the proposals still need to pass.
>>
>>         Despite the ChAC being unable to send “formal advice” to the Board of
>>         Trustees, the ChAC Steering Committee is taking a proactive step. We
>>         propose sending a “recommendation” to the BoT regarding the two
>>         proposals since their approval was clear among the poll respondents.
>>
>>         I've included more details in the attached PDF. If you need
>>         additional information or access to the specific results and
>>         discussions, we have also included below reference links to summaries
>>         and presentations available on Box.com.
>>
>>         /Cheryl Langdon-Orr/,
>>
>>         Chair 2024 of the ChAC -SC
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20240707/25f5805d/attachment.htm>