[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.
Judith Hellerstein
judith at jhellerstein.com
Mon Jul 8 17:09:07 PDT 2024
HI Greg,
Thanks for this helpful comments. These were very helpful. Perhaps if we had
known this before, we could have done a poll at the meeting itself. According
to the attendance records kept, there were 39 people present
According to the stats kept by ISOC--List last updated on 20 May 2024 (Total no
of Chapters: 120, Total no of Chapters with a ChAC representative appointed: 90
(75%), Total no of Chapters without a ChAC representative: 30 (25%))
From my understanding, we went for a survey/vote because less than 50% of
chapters with a Chapter Advisory rep were present at the meeting, and we wanted
to get feedback from all chapters. I can understand the reasons for this, but
now that we know the rules, we should strive to do polls at these meetings
despite not having 50% of the chapter reps present until we change the bylaws.
Since we need as little as 16 chapter reps to have quorum.
Also, despite our sending advice or recommendations to the Board, I believe that
the board does not have to accept, consider, or adopt them
Best,
Judith Hellerstein
Chapter Advisory rep for ISOC DC
_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail:Judith at jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com
Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 7/8/24 3:20 AM, Greg Shatan via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> All,
>
> I have a few comments in my personal capacity (i.e., not as ChAC-SC
> Secretary), going from general to more specific comments.
>
> First, per our Charter, our "primary purpose" is "to channel and facilitate
> advice and recommendations ... in a bottom-up manner." (Charter, Section 2.1)
> In order to carry out that purpose, we must have clear and readily
> implementable methods of deciding what advice and/or recommendations we are
> giving. We also need to be mindful that how we do things needs to follow (and
> not be inconsistent with) the Charter and the Rules & Procedures (R&P).
>
> The Charter and the R&P both speak to the issue of decision-making. The
> Charter is our foundational document and, as such, should be given priority in
> the case of a direct conflict between the Charter and R&P; however, the
> Charter specifically describes one of the primary functions of the R&P is to
> set out "decision-making processes." (Charter, Section 8.2). Section 10 of the
> R&P states that "in any case of ambiguity ... and in the interpretation of
> the Chapters AC [R&P] and the Chapters AC Charter, the provision of the latter
> shall prevail."
>
> As noted previously, the Charter states in Section 7.5 that "[t]he Chapters AC
> ... shall normally take decisions by consensus among participants. Formal
> votes, which shall be by a majority of those present at the meeting, are only
> to be used if rough consensus cannot be reached after reasonable effort."
> Section 7.5 only deals with formal votes taken at meetings; it is silent with
> regard to formal votes taken at any other time. Section 7.7 states that "[f]or
> all meetings of the Chapters AC, the quorum shall be the one defined in the
> [R&P]." Section 5 of the R&P states that "[f]or all meetings of the Chapters
> AC, the quorum shall be fifteen per cent (15%) of the total number of Chapters
> AC Representatives with voting rights as the time the quorum is determined."
> In addition, the quorum must include at least one Rep from each ISOC Global
> region.
>
> Section 6 of the R&P ("Other decisions") provides more detail regarding
> decision-making processes. Section 6 begins by emphasizing that "based on
> Section 7 of the said Charter, decisions of the Chapters AC ... shall normally
> be made by consensus among Representatives." Section 6 goes on to state that
> "[f]ormal electronic votes, which shall be by a majority of those with rights
> to vote, are only to be used if rough consensus cannot be achieved after
> reasonable effort." Section 6 does not distinguish between formal votes at
> meetings and formal votes taken at any other time; it is written to cover all
> voting scenarios.
>
> The language of Section 6 creates a direct conflict between Section 7.5 of the
> Charter and Section 6 of the R&P, at least with regards to votes at meetings:
> Section 7.5 states that such a vote "shall be by a majority of those present
> at the meeting," while Section 6 says that votes "shall be a majority of those
> with rights to vote." Section 6 leads to a very different result than Section
> 7.5 when applied to votes at meetings. For example, if there are 101
> Representatives with voting rights, a meeting would be quorate with as few as
> 16 Representatives. If a ChAC meeting takes place with 16 Reps, a majority
> vote can be achieved with 9 votes (or more). Those 9 votes represent only 9%
> of all Representatives. In contrast, under Section 6, a vote at that meeting
> will only succeed if at least 51 Representatives vote in favor. The fact that
> the meeting is quorate (which typically means that the meeting can be used to
> make decisions) does not seem to matter. There is no way that both of these
> provisions can be given meaning when applied to a formal vote at a meeting.
> Based on Section 10 of the R&P, it is clear that Section 7.5 of the Charter
> will prevail, and the rule in Section 6 of the R&P will be disregarded.
>
> For votes outside of meetings, the result is far less clear. Since Section
> 7.5 only applies to meetings, there is no direct conflict between Section 7.5
> and Section 6. However, there is still a peculiar result (i.e., votes at
> meetings can carry with less than 10% of the total number of Reps with rights
> to vote, but votes outside of meetings will only carry if at least 51% of the
> total number of Reps with rights to vote cast their votes in favor). Without a
> specific statement that this result was intended, I have to believe this
> result is a mistake and was not intended. Is this an "ambiguity" such that
> Section 10 of the R&P dictates that the Charter must prevail? Unfortunately,
> I don't think it is -- even though it is (in my view) a "clear error."
>
> So where does that leave us? Here are my thoughts:
>
> * We need to revise the R&P and/or the Charter to eliminate this absurd
> result, and have clear rules regarding votes at meetings and at other
> times. If there is a reason to have different rules (and different
> outcomes), the differing rules need to be clearly states and the reason
> for the difference also needs to be clearly stated.
> * In my mind, there is an open question: *Did the ChAC make a reasonable
> effort to achieve a rough consensus*? This is a necessary predicate to a
> formal vote; if we did not do so, the formal vote violates the Charter and
> R&P and is most likely invalid. *I am far from sure that we made the
> required "reasonable effort" to reach consensus before shifting to the
> Surveymonkey poll.*
> * Did the Surveymonkey poll constitute a "formal vote"? The term "formal
> vote" is not defined in the Charter or the R&P; however, it is reasonable
> to say that it refers to any vote that is used to make a decision within
> any deliberative body. I think it's also fair to say that a "formal vote"
> is meant to contrast with surveys, polls and other actions that are
> intended to "take the temperature of the room," "get a sense of where we
> are," "gauge interest" but that are not intended to have the vote result
> be recognized as the decision of the body. *Unless there is ambiguity in
> how the poll was posed to the ChAC, I think it's highly likely that it
> should be considered a formal vote.*
> * *We do have some options:*
> o Section 6 of the R&P provides more flexibility in decision-making than
> the discussion of consensus vs. formal vote would indicate: Decisions
> regarding advice and recommendations can "be made in person and/or by
> any means of electronic communication (e.g. email, text messages
> applications, electronic voting systems, remote
> audio/video conferencing platforms, among others." Any of these
> methods can be used to arrive at consensus (or to take a formal vote,
> as long as the process is "open and transparent").
> o *As a result (and considering the rule regarding consensus efforts
> before voting), we could turn back to any of these other methods or to
> a meeting to make a consensus decision and use that consensus decision
> as the basis for giving formal advice to the BoT, essentially
> superseding this vote result.*
> o I think the current result is technically correct, but I think that is
> unfair and unfortunate and does not represent the intentions of the
> active ChAC membersx. It's clear that both proposals had strong
> backing; diluting that by casting that as a recommendation rather than
> advice weakens the result and leaves its intended result less likely
> to be achieved.
>
> Apologies for the TL,DR nature of this email, but I did want to be as detailed
> as I could be (at 3 am) to get these thoughts.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 6:19 PM Christopher Hawker via Chapter-delegates
> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> For clarity, 7.5 reads as follows:
>
> /The Chapters AC, the Steering Committee and Subcommittees shall
> normally take decisions by consensus among participants. Formal votes,
> which shall be by a majority of those present at the meeting, are only
> to be used if rough consensus cannot be reached after reasonable effort./
>
> /
> /
> Section 7 of the Charter refers to meetings held by the ChAC. This poll
> was not held during a meeting therefore 7.5 does not apply. If you wanted
> to go down this route, you could rely on 7.2 and gather support from
> another 9 chapters through a petition to the Chair to call a meeting at
> which consensus could be sought or a formal vote if rough consensus cannot
> be reached (s7.5).
>
> I understand the concern and fully support the two proposals, however,
> there is no point in arguing semantics regarding the definition of words.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2024 1:28 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>;
> 0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com
> <0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com>; ISOC
> Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *Subject:* 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.
> See my comments below:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:54 AM Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> A majority (according to the Meriam-Webster Dictionary) is defined as
> "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total", in this
> case as there were 101 chapters with a "right to vote" this majority
> number would be 51 (as this is more than 50% of the eligible voting
> chapters), i.e. a minimum of 51 chapters must have voted "YES" in
> order to request a formal response from the Board of Trustees. As this
> requirement was not met, the ChAC-SC is unable to request a formal
> response. Having said that, as Cheryl has advised given that a
> majority was reached in the number of respondents, they proposed
> sending a recommendation to the BoT.
>
> The term "majority" is not explicitly defined in the Rules and
> Procedures and is thus subject to interpretation, creating ambiguity.
>
> In order to avoid interpretation and ambiguity, it would be an
> argument/defense to use the definition of a word from a recognised and
> published dictionary (e.g. Collins, Oxford, Meriam-Webster).
>
> As you said, 7.5 of the ChAC charter reads: "Formal votes, which shall
> be by a majority of those present at the meeting, are only to be used
> if rough consensus cannot be reached". This poll/vote was not taken
> during a meeting; it was an email sent out to chapters who were
> entitled to cast a vote in the poll. As such, 7.5 does not apply.
>
>
> /Comment by -ed: //Section 7.5 should have been followed from the
> beginning. According to Section 7.5, the process requires holding a
> meeting to discuss the proposals and attempt to reach a rough consensus.
> If rough consensus is not reached during that meeting, a formal vote
> should be taken at the same meeting. The concept of a "consensus poll"
> does not exist in any ChAC governing documents./
>
> /Section 10 of the ChAC Charter was included to address ambiguities. We
> must look into the governing documents for proper definitions given the
> context of the ChAC, not rely on a dictionary./
>
>
> Therefore, the consensus poll, equated here to a formal vote, is
> valid under Section 7.5 of the ChAC Charter.
>
> This is not the case. This is not a valid vote under 7.5 of the ChAC
> charter as this poll/vote was not taken during a ChAC meeting.
>
> While there was strong support from those who did vote/poll, it does
> not meet the requirements to trigger a formal reply from the BoT.
> Having said this (and as mentioned earlier), the ChAC-SC recognises
> the strong support from those who voted and as a result will request a
> reply from the BoT. Unless a new vote/poll is held and it is verified
> that each eligible voting chapter has received their virtual ballot
> paper, this is as good as it's going to get.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
>
> P.S. To avoid any ambiguity, I do not have an opinion regarding
> challenging the interpretation of the polling results and this email
> is simply to clarify some definitions, which may make things easier to
> understand. I am also not affiliated with the ChAC-SC, BoT, or any
> other ISOC mechanism other than my position on the board for the
> Australian chapter. This is also sent in my personal capacity.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz via Chapter-delegates
> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2024 12:10 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>
> *Cc:*
> 0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com
> <0F9Dn000000QayiKAC at post.dn-71ceimaa.usa576.chatter.salesforce.com>;
> ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *Subject:* 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 ChAC-SC,
>
>
> ISOC Puerto Rico Board formally challenges the interpretation of the
> recent polling results regarding the two proposals submitted by our
> chapter to the ChAC-SC. The current stance, which prevents these
> proposals from being sent as formal advice due to an alleged
> insufficient participation level, is based on a misinterpretation of
> our governing documents.
>
> The phrase “…which shall be by a majority of those with rights to
> vote…” in Section 6 of the ChAC Rules and Procedures (ChAC RoPs) was
> intended to include only chapters in good standing with a designated
> ChAC delegate. The term "majority" is not explicitly defined in the
> Rules and Procedures and is thus subject to interpretation, creating
> ambiguity. Section 10 of the same document addresses such ambiguities:
> “In any case of ambiguity... the provision of the [ChAC] Charter shall
> prevail.”
>
> The ChAC Charter (ChAC C), Section 7.5, clearly states: “Formal votes,
> which shall be by a majority of those present at the meeting, are only
> to be used if rough consensus cannot be reached.” This means the
> participants, not the entire electorate, are counted for formal votes.
>
> Therefore, the consensus poll, equated here to a formal vote, is valid
> under Section 7.5 of the ChAC Charter. Both proposals received
> majority support from those who participated, thus meeting the
> requirements for formal advice submission. Treating these as
> recommendations undermines the Charter’s intent.
>
> ISOC Puerto Rico Board insists that both proposals be transmitted to
> the ISOC Board as formal advice.
>
> -ed
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:29 PM Cheryl Langdon-Orr via
> Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> 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-Or//r/,
> Chair 2024 of the ChAC -SC
>
> <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
> <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://community.internetsociety.org.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
>
> --
> *Notice*:This email may contain confidential information, is 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.
>
>
>
> --
> *Notice*:This email may contain confidential information, is 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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://community.internetsociety.org.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://community.internetsociety.org.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20240708/4b5dc0af/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list