INET: Why ISOC-AU should NOT be a chapter

[Karl Auer]

At 18:35 21/09/96 +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
>Clearly there is a lack of overall consensus on some pretty fundamental
>issues. I think that we should try to find the commonality and proceed
>on that part at the very least, and debate the rest here so we can
>arrive at a meeting able to accept what I suspect will be a voted outcome
>amongst membership rather than (my preference) a unanimous decision.
>
>Karl, for your part can you try to state what you see as commonly agreed?

I can't and don't speak for everyone on these lists. My personal
understanding of the current common ground is very much as you state it:

>	(1) we associate
>	(2) we levy a membership fee
>	(3) we seek to be "involved" with ISOC, with some substantive
>		differences around about what that means

Also that the membership fee of AUS$75 is probably acceptable in absolute
terms, though with some disagreement about its disbursement and a feeling
that it's on the high side. The exact amount of the membership fee is not
something that is seen as any impediment to proceeding - we have to choose
something to start with.

I assume you mean association in the general sense? The issue of
incorporation as an association versus as a company was not IMHO really
agreed; but is in any case a matter of mild disagreement compared to
chapterisation - that is, it's not a showstopper :-)

You missed something very important from your list too: The comparatively
small number of issues that were raised about the suggested articles and
memoranda, and the total silence following the posting of the amended
versions afterwards  shows that there is a VERY LARGE amount of common
ground concerning what the Society is to be for and how it should be run -
certainly more than enough to run with.

There seems to me to be very clear and general support for going ahead and
going ahead now. Chapterisation has stuck a major spanner in the works for
some people (e.g. me), but whether it causes any kind of popular distress
remains to be seen. The issue of chapterhood was and is completely absent
from both the initial and the amended versions of the A&M, indicating that
it was not initially part of the "deal" (for example, the suggested
distribution of membership monies to ISOC).

I would urge those with opinions on the matter (or any others!) to express
them now.

Regards, K.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer                                +61-6-2494627 (bh)
kauer@pcug.org.au                        +61-6-2486607 (ah)
Home page: http://www.pcug.org.au/~kauer/