[Chapter-delegates] Final Call for Input on the Chapter Charter Agreement (Deadline: 15 September)

[Winthrop Yu]

+1 Carlos, Hank, and Veni!

Like Hank, I would like to review the comments/submissions of the other Chapters 
on this matter. Like Carlos, perhaps a public discussion would be good. Such a 
discussion could take place on this Chapter Delegates list (thank you for 
initiating it). [Though am not sure if my email will make it through to the 
e-lists, I had to change my email address registered with ISOC HQ a few months 
ago as my email was not getting through, not to the lists, not even directly to 
our Regional CEM or Christine herself ... long story.]

Like the other Chapters, we also received the 1-on-1 follow-up by Christine of 
Flávio's call for inputs. There was a rather short discussion regarding this new 
Chapter Charter. Not because there was no concern nor interest, but because 
before and since the 2018 Chapter Letter, all these issues had been discussed 
internally and regionally, as well as with key people at ISOC HQ. Key issues 
were, as always: legal registration and funding.

Many of you will recall that when Andrew Sullivan's 2018 Chapter Letter was 
being discussed, concerns were raised about the requirement for a bank account 
in the Chapter's (legally registered corporate) name. Prior to the signing of 
the 2018 Chapter Letter, in order to address the concerns then raised, Chapters 
were assured that alternative means of funding would be provided by HQ. It has 
been 8 years since the 2018 Chapter Letter, and instead it seems that even more 
requirements are being imposed the Chapters.

I thus closely read and much appreciate Veni's email and the points he has 
raised, including /i.a./:

> /... it essential that any preliminary analysis recognize that chapters are 
> independent organizations operating under very different legal frameworks, 
> legal structures, economic realities ,,,/
Indeed. For example, here in the Philippines in order to mitigate corruption 
enabled by politicians conniving with non-profit entities, the government put in 
place very stringent regulation and oversight of all non-profits. (A year ago I 
was trying to open a simple ATM Savings account with a bank, but made the 
mistake of mentioning my work with non-profits. As a result I was shuttled from 
one bank officer to another for almost 4 hours. When I made the off-hand remark 
that: "I should've just said that I'm retired.", the bank officer in front of me 
said: "Oh, you're retired, sir?", gave me a new form to fill-up, and I was done 
in under 15 minutes.)

> /... it is not clear whether the current agreement was previously evaluated, 
> whether its positive and negative outcomes were documented, or whether the 
> full ChAC determined that there were sufficient grounds to initiate its 
> amendment./
Indeed, it seems like the 2018 Chapter Letter's effects (problems?) were not 
evaluated. Meantime, I'm sure Flávio and the ChAC Steering Committee are doing 
as best as they can, this new Chapter Charter and its new requirements wasn't 
their idea. I particularly appreciate the effort made by our Asia Pacific 
regional representative on ChAC -- Thilina, to bring important matters to our 
attention. Moving forward, further discussion of the Chapter Charter may perhaps 
also take place during the next Full ChAC Call on Tuesday 22 September at 1400h 
UTC.

> /All proposed changes are made to follow a US-based NGO space .../
This brings to mind then ISOC-CH representative Richard Hill's concerns 
regarding I* orgs being headquartered/domiciled in the US. Back then, we thought 
this was more-or-less okay. But given the current (and possibly future?) US 
Administration, the chapters or adjuncts of these orgs that are outside the US 
may find that they are not in a "happy place".

... and Carlos:

> I propose that the discussion first focus on determining whether there is an 
> objective and shared justification for amending the agreement. ... If such an 
> evaluation does not yet exist, I believe it should be conducted before 
> chapters are asked to validate or comment on a new contractual text. ... 
> determine whether the agreement should be amended and, if necessary, how to do 
> so in a proportionate manner that respects their autonomy.
+1 Carlos

YMMV,

WYn
ISOC-PH

On 9/17/2026 1:48 AM, Carlos Vera via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> I see a serious lack of transparency here.. this process through private email 
> and no public discussion does not sound transparent to me.
>
> I wrote to support and also to flavio and copy here:
>
> Sorry if I miss some previous discussion on prior Justification for Reviewing 
> the Chapter Charter Agreement
>>
>>
>> Dear Flávio,
>>
>> Thank you for your message and for the invitation to participate in the 
>> consultation on the proposed update to the Chapter Charter Agreement.
>>
>> Before analyzing the content of the draft, I believe it is necessary to 
>> address a preliminary question: what is the justification for amending the 
>> existing agreement?
>>
>> According to the information shared, the Steering Committee and Internet 
>> Society staff have been working on a proposal linked to the principles of the 
>> Chapter DNA. However, it is not clear whether the current agreement was 
>> previously evaluated, whether its positive and negative outcomes were 
>> documented, or whether the full ChAC determined that there were sufficient 
>> grounds to initiate its amendment.
>>
>> The fact that the agreement has been in place for several years, or that 
>> general principles regarding health, resilience, and impact have been 
>> defined, does not in itself demonstrate that the current instrument should be 
>> changed. Before discussing a new text, it would be important to understand 
>> which aspects of the existing agreement have worked, which have not, what 
>> specific problems the proposed changes seek to address, and whether those 
>> problems actually arise from the agreement or from its implementation, 
>> evaluation mechanisms, resource availability, or institutional support for 
>> chapters.
>>
>> I also consider it essential that any preliminary analysis recognize that 
>> chapters are independent organizations operating under very different legal 
>> frameworks, legal structures, economic realities, social conditions, and 
>> cultural contexts. A global framework that does not adequately consider this 
>> diversity could result in uniform standards that distort local realities, 
>> complicate the work of chapters, or create administrative obligations 
>> incompatible with their capacities and circumstances.
>>
>> Therefore, I propose that the discussion first focus on determining whether 
>> there is an objective and shared justification for amending the agreement. If 
>> an evaluation has already been conducted or a formal decision has been 
>> adopted, I would appreciate it if the relevant documents could be shared, 
>> including the body that made that decision and the grounds considered.
>>
>> If such an evaluation does not yet exist, I believe it should be conducted 
>> before chapters are asked to validate or comment on a new contractual text. 
>> Only on the basis of a well-founded assessment and a genuine understanding of 
>> the diversity of chapters will we be able to determine whether the agreement 
>> should be amended and, if necessary, how to do so in a proportionate manner 
>> that respects their autonomy.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Carlos Vera
>>
>> El sept 16, 2026, a la(s) 12:39, Hank Nussbacher via Chapter-delegates 
>> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> escribió:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I submitted 3 submissions back on Aug 5 as I assume many other ChAC reps have 
>> done.
>> What I have not seen is an archive of submissions and the status of 
>> comments/changes requested.
>> Can someone point me to where that might be?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank Nussbacher
>> ISOC-IL
>>
>>> On 16/09/2026 18:00, Veni Markovski via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>>>
>>> We almost missed that.
>>> Among the proposed changes, there are texts that have been proposed in the 
>>> pasts, and have failed in one time or another.
>>> Furthermore, the proposed "draft feedback" is limited to preliminary 
>>> populated answers, which do not necessarily cover all situations. Even more 
>>>  they tend to propose that the chapters have no choice, but to accept the 
>>> proposed changes.
>>> We don't believe that some of the changes are needed. ISOC tends to bring to 
>>> the chapter different requirements every few years, and we change by-laws 
>>> (where applicable), register the new by-laws in court, etc. (all this costs 
>>> money!).
>>> All proposed changes are made to follow a US-based NGO space, where they 
>>> make sense, but they do not take into account the cross-cultural differences.
>>> The fact that such changes have slipped through the cracks of our 
>>> (ISOC-Bulgaria) attention is something that we would be addressing at our 
>>> next Board meeting, but we see potential problems in implementing some of 
>>> these requirements, if they are obligatory for each chapter.
>>> best,
>>> v/
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 11:46 AM Christine Saegesser Baethge 
>>> <chapter-support at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>    Please find below an important reminder from Flávio Wagner. Your
>>>    chapter’s input is critical! ͏  ͏ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/attachments/20260917/2a8c0e88/attachment-0001.htm>