The future of urisa as an international organization

THE FUTURE OF URISA AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
December 19, 2011
Background
URISA was established to be an international educational organization without political, social, financial or
national bias.
The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association had its origins in the academic community of
the early 1960’s. Many have written of the early years of URISA. Suffice it to say that even though it
originated from the activity of Edgar M. Horwood at the University of Washington in Seattle, it has always
had an international focus.
Article II of the URISA Constitution states:
URISA is an international Association to stimulate, encourage and otherwise provide for the
advancement of an interdisciplinary and multi-professional approach to planning, designing and
operating urban information systems. The Association shall operate as an objective educational
organization without political, social, financial or national bias. Its main objectives shall be to
foster exchange of ideas and promote studies focusing on urban information systems for
planning and operational needs as well as for analyzing the broader issues and the consequences
of such systems. The Association shall support these objectives by promoting acquaintance and
discussion among its members and with scholars in related fields, by stimulating research, by
encouraging the publication of scholarly studies, and by performing services to aid the
advancement of its members and the field of urban development.
Universities by their very nature are international in scope. Learning, research, and the dissemination of
knowledge know no national boundaries. Indeed, scholarship and learning are most effective when they
are incubated in a diverse environment. The best universities are characterized by a large proportion of
international faculty and students, but we might ask – do they attract diversity because they are among
the best, or are they among the best because of their diversity?
While it is not a university, a valid question for URISA is whether its current stature as a professional and
educational organization attracts international members and participation or if international members and
participation are the basis for URISA’s standing within the community.
What is the record of URISA as an international organization and what should its future be?
During its early years, in practice, URISA’s ability to develop as a true international organization was
limited by a number of factors:
• Outside of the academic community, international travel and communications by administrators
of urban and regional agencies was very limited by local government policy, budget, and
practice.
• Technology of the time, including air travel, computers, and international telephony, was poorly
developed at best and non-existent in key area, and the internet had yet to be invented - all of
which hampered broad international participation in URISA.
• The level of economic development in more than half of the world at the time was considered to
be ‘Third World’ and hence not fertile ground for implementation of urban and regional
information systems.
• Much of the world was divided into two broad political camps – the ‘West’ and the ‘Communist
Block.’ This division further limited opportunities for international exchange in the field of urban
and regional information systems.
These factors did not prevent some international involvement in URISA at the academic level from the
very beginning, but such participation at the planning and operational level, as envisioned by the URISA
Constitution, has always been rare.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
In 1972 the British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (BURISA) was established along
the lines of URISA (see: www.burisa.org.uk). The first BURISA Newsletter included an article titled “US
Association” which sketched the early history of URISA, urged BURISA members to consider taking a
URISA membership, and indicated that ‘BURISA has already established firm links with URISA and some
material appearing in their newsletter will be summarized for British consumption.’
Early issues of the BURISA Newsletter listed liaisons from non-U.K. organizations in France, Denmark,
Canada, and West Germany. URISA was designated as the organization representing the U.S. to
BURISA. Jack Beresford (1972-1974) and C.F. Davies (1974 – 1976) were the URISA representatives to
BURISA. After 1976 the BURISA Newsletter dropped all reference to non-U.K. liaisons and a brief survey
of early issues of the BURISA Newsletter suggests that URISA material was never summarized for U.K.
consumption, as planned.
Mike Kevany from PlanGraphics regularly attends meetings of UDMS - the Urban Data Management
Society – a European association formed in 1971 (see: www.udms.net). He had encouraged contacts
between EDMS and URISA but there is no indication that any such formal contacts have occurred. Mike
Kevany and David Prosperi from Florida Atlantic University are listed as current U.S. liaisons to UDMS.
Outside Europe, there are also current UDMS liaisons from Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa, and Iran.
In 1983, the Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (AURISA) was organized,
modeled upon URISA. In the mid-1980’s, there was an attempt to form a URISA Chapter in Mexico but it
never succeeded. In about 2002, there was discussion with a member from Nigeria about forming a
URISA chapter there, but nothing concrete ever developed. At around that time, the first discussions
about forming a Caribbean Chapter began.
Consideration of URISA’s effectiveness as an international organization likely occurred from time to time
in the past. In late 2001, URISA Board members Ed Wells and Zorica Nedovic-Budic launched a URISA
International Task Force (ITF). Other members of the ITF were Kathy Covert, Shoreh Elhami, Sanjiv
Gandhi, Dianne Haley, and Shilpam Pandey. The ITF was to recommend policy related to requests from
chapters and to establish formal relations with associations outside the U.S. and Canada. During the
following year, the ITF developed four documents (see attachments A-D):
• Proposed URISA Policy International Affiliations and Liaisons (July 2002)
• Response to Board Questions on Proposed Policy (September 2002)
• Recommended Changes to URISA Bylaws and Policies (September 2002)
• Recommended Motions to Enact Changes to URISA Bylaws and Policies (October 2002)
The 2001-2002 URISA Board was nearing adoption of the proposed policy, but did not have time to do so
before the change-over of the Board at the 2002 Annual Conference. The discussion related to URISA as
an international organization then went in a different direction with the new Board.
The consequence of this history and these limitations for URISA has been that its strongest international
component has been in North America – primarily in Canada, with recently growing participation from the
Caribbean region. A brief review of what URISA has accomplished internationally will demonstrate that
the organization has never forgotten its international focus, but also indicates some deficiencies and a
possible way forward.
URISA’s Ongoing International Focus
The following inventory of accomplishments shows that in practice URISA has always had successes as
an international organization.
International contributors to and participation in URISA conferences:
A sampling of non-U.S. subject matter and authors indicates that there has been a steady growth in the
international aspect of URISA conferences. The 1967 AC Proceedings included 25 papers, of which only
one (4%) was by a non-American author. By the 1987 AC, Canadian authors and/or subject matter had

DECEMBER 19, 2011
increased to 12 of 84 papers (14%). The following year, 1988, 15 of 95 papers (16%) were ‘international’
– with 10 Canadian and five Australian papers.
In 1989, the international component increased further with 25% of the 95 papers having a non-U.S.
focus, including 14 Canadian papers and an additional 10 from or about Australia, France, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Barbados, and Spain. Fast forward to 1999 and the overall ‘international’ percentage
remained about 25% but the composition changed with nine of 84 papers from Canada and an additional
12 from Hong Kong, France, Guam, Germany, New Zealand, Central Europe, Latin America, Lebanon,
Australia, and New Zealand.
During the highly successful 2006 AC in Vancouver, Canada, 50 (31%) of the 160 papers were authored
by Canadians, and a further 10 (7%) were authored from or written about South Korea, London, Venice,
Australia, Denmark, Portugal, Germany, Bosnia, the EU, Sweden, and Japan.
Clearly, the URISA AC is a highly valued international event that provides a unique venue for intellectual
discourse and exchange in the field of urban and regional information systems.
URISA specialty conferences attract international participation as well. For example, during the 2011
URISA GIS in Public Health Conference in Atlanta, of 175 attendees, 38 (22%) were from outside the
U.S., including six from Armenia, three from Australia, three from Azerbaijan, two from India, seven from
Kazakhstan, five from Kenya, two from Sweden, three from Uganda, and two from the U.K., as well as
individual attendees from Canada, Brazil, Japan, Pakistan, Portugal, and Saudi Arabia. Because of the
large number of attendees from former Soviet republics, selected sessions were translated live into
Russian during the conference. This conference was also successful in attracting posters from Public
Health professionals working in GIS who could not attend the event in person, including from Indonesia,
the Ukraine, and the Republic of Georgia.
International content and contributors to URISA Journal
The URISA Journal is the Association’s flagship publication. While its focus is academic, its purpose is to
explore and analyze the planning and application of urban and regional information systems for
operational purposes. Between 1989 and 2010, the URISA Journal published 372 articles. Of these, 21
articles (6%) had a Canadian orientation. A further 64 articles (17%) represented authors or content
outside the U.S. and Canada, including the U.K., Egypt, Tunisia, the Netherlands, Australia, South Korea,
Republic of South Africa, Hong Kong, France, and the E.U.
The URISA Journal’s record of international authors and content has been an effective means of
achieving the Association’s international goals by fostering the exchange of ideas without regard to
national boundaries.
International board members & presidents
Of a total of 46 Presidents in URISA’s history four have been from Canada:
• Barry S. Wellar: 1977-1978
• O. E. Dial, 1979-1980
• Laurel McKay, 1993-1992
• Dianne Haley: 2004-2005
In addition, URISA has had many non-U.S. Board members. During the past ten years, of 30 individual
Board members, five (16%) have been non-U.S. The only known non-North American Board member
was Mr. Bijan Azad, from Lebanon in 1995-1998.
In 2011, the URISA Bylaws were revised to require that at least one international member always serves
on the Board of Directors.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
International chapters
URISA has developed a network of five international chapters but the proportion of international to U.S.
chapters (5 vs. 23) remains low. Current international chapters include:
• Alberta
• British Columbia
• Caribbean
• Ontario
• Quebec
International conferences
The URISA Policy Manual states:
Future Site Selections
Site selection, whether for the Annual Conference, workshops or other educational events, can
greatly impact overall event attendance and greatly impact the cost of operating the event. As
these are administrative in nature, approval of all site selections rests with the Executive Director
(or Executive Staff) who shall be responsible for reporting on their activities in this regard to the
URISA Board of Directors. Due to the scope and impact of the Annual Conference, the following
Site Selection policy will be used in conjunction with the URISA Annual Conference.
1. An Annual Conference shall be at a time of the year deemed appropriate by the Board of
Directors and the Executive Director (or Executive Staff).
2. The Annual Conference shall be rotated among the East, Midwest and West in a regular
pattern.
3. In consideration of item 2 with regard to rotation, the Annual Conference will be held in
Canada at a minimum of every 9 years.
Since 1974, URISA has met or exceeded its policy on conferences in Canada. Nevertheless international
conferences have been limited to the URISA Annual Conference in Canada and a number of Caribbean
Conferences. There have been no URISA specialty conferences (or the ULA) offered outside the U.S.
URISA’s past international conferences include:
• 1974: URISA AC in Montreal, Canada
• 1980: URISA AC in Toronto, Canada
• 1985, URISA AC in Ottawa, Canada
• 1990: URISA AC in Edmonton, Canada
• 1997: URISA AC in Toronto, Canada
• 2001: URISA Caribbean GIS Conference in Montego Bay, Jamaica
• 2004: URISA Caribbean GIS Conference in Barbados
• 2006: URISA AC in Vancouver, Canada
• 2006 URISA Caribbean GIS Conference in the Bahamas
• 2008: URISA Caribbean GIS Conference in Grand Cayman
• 2010: URISA Caribbean Conference in Trinidad and Tobago
• 2012: URISA Caribbean GIS Conference in Montego Bay, Jamaica
Australia & New Zealand - SSSI
In the early 1980’s interest in geospatial technology led a number of individuals from Australia to attend
URISA conferences. In 1983 the Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
(AURISA) was formed. Almost immediately exchange of members between URISA and AURISA began
occurring. By the late 1980’s there was an International Column in the URISA News and by the early
1990’s occasional exchange of board members and officers.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
Several years ago AURISA merged with other professional and industry organizations in Australia and
New Zealand to form SSI – the Spatial Sciences Institute. Two years ago, SSI merged with the surveying
organizations in Australia and New Zealand to form SSSI - the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute.
The recent practice between SSSI and URISA has been for an annual exchange of presidents. Typically,
the URISA President will visit Australia and possibly New Zealand to speak at various national and
regional conferences and seminars. Likewise, the President of SSSI will visit North America and
participate in the URISA Annual Conference and possibly local, state or provincial conferences. The SSSI
representative typically sits in on the URISA Board meetings that occur before and after the AC.
In 2010, SSSI licensed a URISA workshop for presentation across Australia and New Zealand. This pilot
project might lead to licensing the entire portfolio of URISA workshops by SSSI. In 2011, SSSI and
URISA initiated a conference call between Executive Committees and agreed to develop a small number
of joint cooperative initiatives. A formal SSSI-URISA Five-year MOU was signed in 2010 (see attachment
E).
International award winners
URISA’s Exemplary Systems in Government Awards, inaugurated in 1980, recognize extraordinary
achievement by government agencies in the use of automated information systems. This achievement is
defined as the effective application of computer technology that can be measured in terms of improved
government services and increased benefits to citizens. The award competition is open to all public
agencies at the federal, state/provincial, regional and local levels.
Since its inception, 202 ESIG awards or Distinguished System Awards have been made. Of these, a total
of 24 (12%) have been awarded to Canadian agencies. A further 22 (11%) have been awarded to other
non-U.S. agencies, including those in Australia, Singapore, Qatar, Sweden, and Egypt.
Regular interest in ESIG and achievement outside North America demonstrates the continued
international character of URISA.
GIS Certification
URISA initiated the concept of professional GIS certification, with the formation of the GIS Certification
Institute (GISCI) the direct result. GISCI has awarded certification to a considerable number of
international (non-U.S.) professionals. Currently 4.7% of GISP’s are held outside of the U.S., with three
out of four non-U.S. GISPs being Canadians. Outside of the U.S. and Canada GISPs are unevenly
distributed. There are no GISPs from China, just three from India, two from Japan, two from Pakistan,
three from all of Latin America, eight from Australia and New Zealand, and seven from Europe. However,
there are 11 GISPs from Caribbean countries and 16 from the Middle East region. This suggests that
where GISP certification is understood outside the U.S., it is perceived as a valuable indication of
professional competency. Furthermore, the SSSI used the GISP qualifications to establish their own
version of GIS professional certification, called GISP-AP (Asia Pacific), in 2007. The program operates
under a Memorandum of Understanding between the GIS Certification Institute and the Surveying &
Spatial Sciences Institute. GISP certification is recognized as being equivalent to GISP-AP certification.
While GISCI is not a part of URISA, its international focus certainly reflects URISA influence and URISA
serves on the GISCI Board along with representatives from four other professional associations.
GISCorps
GISCorps was the idea of longtime URISA member Shoreh Elhami. She presented her idea to the URISA
International Task Force shortly after she joined the ITF in 2001. Her idea was embraced by the ITF as
well as by the URISA community. In 2003 the Board unanimously endorsed GISCorps as a URISA
initiative. To date (2011), the Corps has deployed 250 volunteers to 80 missions in 39 countries around
the world.
GISCorps’ mission is to coordinate short term, volunteer based GIS services to underprivileged
communities. Since 2004, GISCorps has deployed URISA volunteers to work on projects to benefit

DECEMBER 19, 2011
programs and people in every continent except Antarctica. Several GISCorps missions have been focused
on the U.S., mostly in response to natural disasters. However, the vast majority of missions have
focused outside the U.S. A review of GISCorps’ international deployments makes clear that it is truly
needy communities that the program benefits, from multiple missions to Haiti, Guatemala, Afghanistan,
and Mozambique, to desperate regions like the Darfur/Eastern Chad border, North Korea, Myanmar, and
Somalia.
Much of the work of GISCorps goes unrecognized by those it helps – refugees, the hungry, and people
who benefit from land-mine clearance programs likely are never aware of GISCorps’ helping hand.
Recognition is not the motivation for GISCorps. GISCorps implements URISA's vision of advancing the
effective use of spatial information technologies without regard to national borders.
International Members
In October 2011, URISA had a total of 2,290 regular members. Of this total 2,067 (90.3%) were from
the U.S., 139 (6.1%) from Canada, and 84 (3.6%) from other countries. It is interesting to observe that
that the proportion of non-U.S. URISA members is lower than the proportion of non-U.S. URISA
Conference papers, URISA Journal articles, and ESIG award winners. This might suggest that the stature
of URISA in the international community is such that it attracts mostly the ‘best and the brightest’ outside
the U.S.
These membership numbers cause us to ask though, with the technological advances of the past 25
years and the reduction in real communication and travel costs, why isn’t the proportion of URISA
members outside the U.S. much higher? For a truly international organization, shouldn’t we expect that
more than 50% of URISA’s members would be from outside North America? This question suggests that
we should look at areas where URISA has not ensured a balanced international focus.
Ensuring and Improving URISA’s International Focus
Just as ‘all politics is local’ as the late U.S. Senator Tipp O’Neil said, so all GIS data and applications are
local, or developed for some defined geographic limits. Very rarely are GIS systems developed to be truly
international in scope.
This does not this mean however, that URISA should not concern itself with examining its appropriate
international mission. Just as a university benefits from diversity, so too the international GIS community
and those anywhere with an interest in urban and regional information systems benefit from an exchange
of ideas, technology, applications, and policies from wherever geospatial professionals study and work.
There are some areas where URISA’s past and current programs have not recognized the benefit of an
international focus as envisioned by our constitution. This does not mean that URISA should discontinue
any programs, but we should do a comprehensive review to identify where the international focus may
have been forgotten and consider ways to enhance our services and programs to be more broadly
relevant.
The following section suggests some areas where URISA’s international focus can be improved.
U.S. focus in educational offerings
URISA Workshops and the URISA Leadership Academy (ULA) have been developed primarily by U.S.
authors. Because URISA educational content is typically developed by working professionals, it is highly
influenced by the authors’ personal experiences. Workshops typically include some proportion of
theoretical framework (technology, data, policy, or organizational), but also include frequent use of ‘real-
world’ case studies. These case studies help to make the learning objectives relevant to students.
However, URISA Workshops with case studies that are solely U.S.-centric often fail to provide the same
degree of relevance to non-U.S. students. This is borne out by frequent student evaluation comments
from non-U.S. students or from students in URISA Workshops taught in non-U.S. venues, complaining
about the lack of localized content.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
A program begun recently by SSSI and the workforce development community in Australia and New
Zealand, called Destination Spatial (www.destinationspatial.org), would be a good partner in the effort to
expand the scope of our educational offerings beyond the U.S.
U.S. focus in publications
The URISA Journal and The GIS Professional have a good record of soliciting and including articles from
non-U.S. authors, as indicated above.
However, many URISA publications suffer from the prevalence of U.S.-centric case studies. URISA
Books, URISA Compendiums, and URISA Quick-Studies are typically written about general topics of
interest to our membership. But as with URISA Workshops, the authors often rely on U.S.-centric case
studies to the detriment of non-U.S. readers.
U.S. policy focus
URISA’s Policy Advisory Committee is charged with recommending formal policy positions to the URISA
Board. It is unknown if the Policy Advisory Committee has ever considered issues outside the U.S. There
is very low recognition on the part of non-U.S. URISA members or chapters that non-U.S. issues can be
referred to the Policy Advisory Committee or that the URISA Board would consider them.
U.S. focus of liaisons
URISA currently has 14 designated liaisons to other organizations and professional groups, but none of
them are to non-U.S. organizations.
Leadership and Decision Making
As indicated above, URISA has had four presidents and several Board members from Canada and one
from outside North America. However there has never been a president from outside the U.S. or Canada,
and since 1998 no one from outside North America has served on the Board.
While URISA’s Caribbean and Canadian chapters have liaison to URISA via the Chapter Relations
Committee, quarterly Chapter Leaders’ Conference Calls, and the annual Chapter Leaders’ Forum, these
do not represent direct international participation in URISA’s decision making process.
There is no direct liaison at all for individual URISA members outside the U.S., Canada, and the
Caribbean.
Lack of chapters outside North America
As outlined above, there were initial discussions 10 years or more ago regarding possible URISA chapters
outside the U.S. and Canada, but only the Caribbean Chapter succeeded in formation.
Lack of affiliations and alliances outside of the U.S.
URISA’s affiliation with SSSI (the successor to AURISA) has been its only active international affiliation.
Opportunities to nurture mutually beneficial affiliations or alliances with BURISA and EDMS in the past
were not pursued.
Lack of focused international outreach and initiatives
URISA has lacked a sustained, high-level focus on its international mission in the areas of education,
publications, policy, liaisons, affiliations and decision making, as outlined above. The potential benefits of
international outreach were considered on a systematic basis by the ITF in 2002-2003. But no
comprehensive plan has been adopted and implemented to maximize our international mission.
The Future of URISA as an International Organization
The factors outlined above that hindered URISA’s ability in its early years to pursue its original vision as
an international organization have now largely been eliminated. International travel for local government
administrators, although limited, is now more feasible. The Cold War is now over and countries once

DECEMBER 19, 2011
enemies of the West are now allies in many cases, and most are active trading partners. ‘Third World’ is
a description applied to few countries today and rapidly developing economies are actively developing
urban and regional information systems.
The list of technology developed since URISA’s founding is staggering. This has a two-fold consequence.
Urban and regional information systems now capitalize on these technologies, primarily related to
geospatial and allied technologies.
In addition new technology – preeminent of which are cheap international air travel, the Internet, and
cheap telephony – now allows anyone anywhere with an interest in urban and regional information
systems to come together as a true international community. Cheap international air travel allows us to
come together face to face. The Internet and cheap telephony allows us to come together as a virtual
community via conference calls, webinars, video conferences, etc.
And the development of urban and regional information systems and GIS has truly become international.
GIS is recognized by the U.N., I.M.F., World Bank, the Gates Foundation, and other international
organizations and philanthropies as a key technology for planning, monitoring, and managing
development projects on every continent.
Recently there has been renewed interest outside of North America in forming new URISA Chapters or
affiliations.
There is almost no country anywhere where GIS development is not in progress. There is no region
anywhere that can rival North America for the level of development of GIS. And there is no professional
organization that can rival URISA for its potential to educate, promote, guide, and lead the effective
development and management of GIS and regional information systems.
This represents a profound opportunity for URISA to return to its original goals and to effectively support
the international urban and regional information community.
The following section outlines possible initiatives and policies that are designed to build upon URISA’s
current programs, but further advance the original goals of the organization through a broader
international focus.
Education:
The U.S.-biased focus in URISA educational offerings should be addressed. The following actions can be
taken:
• Establish a policy that authors of URISA Workshops and the ULA avoid U.S.-specific content and
case studies, if these would minimize the Workshop value outside the U.S.
• Solicit non-U.S. authors for the WDC and ULA.
• Charge the WDC and ULA to review existing educational material, identify U.S.-focused case
studies, and report on the feasibility to either a) replace the material with general, non-national
focused case studies, or b) create modular non-U.S. national case studies. This might be modeled
on the current pilot effort by SSSI to create Australia & New Zealand appropriate case studies
and content for URISA’s GIS Program Management workshop.
• Charge the WDC and ULA to work directly with the Destination Spatial committee of the SSSI and
the Spatial Industries Business Association of Australia and New Zealand to report on the
feasibility of jointly developing international educational content.
• Where U.S.-focused content or case studies are replaced in existing Workshops or the ULA,
consider moving the existing content and case-studies to an appendix, to retain the value of the
original content.
URISA should proactively promote educational offerings outside the U.S. No URISA workshops have
been offered outside of Canada, the Caribbean, and Australia. Except for the recent SSSI-sponsored
workshops in Australia, URISA Workshops have rarely been offered outside of URISA Conferences (2006
URISA AC in Vancouver, and Workshops included as part of the Caribbean Conferences). In addition to

DECEMBER 19, 2011
on-site instructor-led Workshops, URISA should develop a strategy to leverage educational offerings
around the world via URISA-Connect webinars. Actions that URISA can take include:
• Offer the ULA in Canada in 2012. If successful, repeat every 2 to 3 years.
• Offer a URISA Workshop Week (a week of URISA workshops at a single venue) in Canada in
2012 and the Caribbean in 2013. If successful, repeat every two years in each region.
• Actively pursue opportunities to offer the ULA and URISA Workshops in the UAE, in cooperation
with the recently proposed UAE Chapter of URISA.
• Explore a pilot project to translate one or two URISA workshops into a major non-English
language (Spanish, Chinese, etc.). This would involve creating dual-language Workshop material
to facilitate presentation by English speaking authors to audiences that are not all English-
proficient.
• Develop a policy to license URISA Workshops on a limited basis outside North America at reduced
rates to organizations willing to pay instructor honoraria and travel expenses.
• Develop a plan to market the ULA and URISA Workshops outside North America.
• Develop a plan to market URISA-Connect webinars outside North America.
Publications:
As indicated above, the URISA Journal has a good record of including international topics and authors.
The GIS Professional in its current form is a newer publication. It has included Canadian articles and
authors. However, non-North American content and authors are rare. The following suggestions could
leverage the GIS Professional to enhance its international standing:
• Solicit volunteer content editors for Canada, the Caribbean, and outside North America.
• Solicit article sharing agreements with BURISA, SSSI, and EDMS, to revive or nurture common
focus with these organizations outside North America.
• Consider an annual ‘International Edition’ of the GIS Professional that would focus on GIS
Practitioner articles outside North America.
• Explore a pilot project to translate an issue of the GIS Professional into a major non-English
language (Spanish, Chinese, etc.). This would create a powerful marketing tool outside North
America.
• Seek a regular column in Geoconnexion International Magazine (www.geoconnexion.com)
building off the regular URISA column in ArcNews.
The development of new URISA books, compendiums, and Quick Study guides is currently on hold. It is
likely that many publications in our current on-line catalog suffer from the same U.S. content and case
study focus that characterizes many of our educational offerings.
If URISA launches development of new publications in the future, it should apply a policy to avoid U.S.-
specific content and case studies, if these would minimize the publication’s value outside the U.S.
When URISA launches development of the proposed GIS Management Institute (GMI), a key component
will be the development of the GIS Management Body of Knowledge (GMBOK). The GMBOK would be
comprised of a variety of GIS management related standards and best practices. These should be
developed to be non-U.S. specific to the degree feasible. To ensure international acceptance, the
editorial board and peer-review panel should be international in composition.
Conferences:
The URISA Caribbean Conference has been both professionally and financially successful since its launch
in 2001. This event is not limited to Caribbean participants, but much of the content focuses on regional
issues and GIS development. Held every two years, the next Caribbean Conference is scheduled for
2012. The event is sponsored by URISA’s Caribbean Chapter and benefits from the active involvement of
Chapter members.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
URISA should consider a URISA Canada Geospatial Conference, to be held on alternate years from the
Caribbean Conference. Conceptually, this event would be sponsored by the four Canadian URISA
chapters and provide a focus on issues specific to Canada.
On a more long-term basis, URISA should look for opportunities to organize or co-sponsor conferences
outside North America.
Policy
URISA should affirm its interest in appropriate policy issues outside the U.S. The Policy Advisory
Committee should be tasked with including a Canadian, Caribbean, and non-North American member. It
should also be tasked to make some effort to monitor appropriate policy matters outside of the U.S.
MOU’s and Liaison with Allied International Organizations
URISA’s MOU with SSSI should be a high priority to ensure that we maximize the mutual benefits
between the two organizations. We should actively engage SSSI to coordinate between our two Boards
or Executive Committees on a quarterly basis. We should compile the successes and failures of the MOU
so that when it expires in 2015 we can ensure that the renewal supports a continued successful
relationship.
We should try to reestablish our liaison with BURISA and pursue a liaison relationship with EDMS.
The Marketing Committee should be charged with developing a list of other potential international allied
organizations with which we could try to develop liaison relationships. An example of such an
organization is the Asia GIS Association, which holds an international conference every two years, with all
publications and proceedings conducted in English. Another potential partner in this effort is FutureGov,
which holds forums and summits in a wide variety of countries throughout the South Pacific and Asia
every year.
Future International Chapters and Affiliations
As indicated above, URISA recently received a petition to form a new Chapter in the United Arab
Emirates. Within the last year, individual URISA members have initiated discussions regarding potential
new URISA chapters, affiliations, or cooperation with groups in Taiwan, Turkey, and Poland. Similar
discussions may take place in the coming months in Ghana, Colombia, and Brazil.
Our reputation outside North America is very good, which is the basis for interest in joining or affiliating
with URISA. Exploratory discussions should be encouraged and international visitors to URISA events
engaged.
A challenge will be to have an appropriate organizational framework for individuals and organizations
interested in formal association with URISA. The variety of international options might include:
• Formation of a new chapter by URISA members in a region, nation, or group of nations outside
North America.
• Affiliation of an existing organization in a region, nation, or group of nations outside North
America as a URISA chapter.
America with URISA via an MOU similar to that with SSSI.
America with URISA via exchange of liaisons.
Recently, URISA formed a working committee to negotiate with chapters regarding new requirements for
affiliation with URISA. This would apply to existing and new URISA Chapters in Canada, the Caribbean,
and the U.S. This committee could also be charged by the Board with establishing policies and a
framework for a variety of international chapters and affiliations (including those outlined above) outside
North America. The work of the 2002-2003 ITF should be reviewed in formulating such policies.

DECEMBER 19, 2011
Leadership and Decision Making
Recently URISA’s Bylaws were changed to ensure that at least one Board member is from outside the
U.S. at all times. In practice, this will likely be a member from Canada, which is by far the largest
national representation within URISA from outside the U.S.
However, as URISA pursues an international focus with new vigor, we should not be surprised if in
practice there is often more than just one non-U.S. representative on the Board. URISA should consider
the following suggestions to be pro-active in encouraging participation in URISA leadership and decision-
making:
• Charge the URISA Leadership Development Committee (LDC) with broadening its scope beyond
North America to look for future Board candidates farther afield than in the past.
• Some leadership in any organization is indirect. Individual volunteers, chapters, or committee
chairs can have an impact far beyond the lines on an organization chart. The LDC should also
seek committee chair candidates from outside North America.
• Chapters themselves can influence the direction of URISA. The Chapter Relations Committee
(CRC) is the working group that links URISA leadership with its chapters. The CRC can play a key
role by anticipating new international chapters and developing mechanisms for supporting them
as they start out.
• The CRC should also try to strengthen its liaison with the Caribbean Chapter, which does not
seem to participate in the CRC actively.
• To strengthen the Canadian perspective within URISA, the CRC might consider aligning its
chapter liaison assignments to include all Canadian chapters together.
• Charge the Strategic Planning Committee with addressing the issue of individual URISA members
who are not represented by chapters. Within Canada and the U.S., individual members who
reside in states and provinces without a URISA chapter can at least assume that the Board
represents their interests at large. There is little confidence at present that the URISA Board
considers the interests of members outside North America.
New URISA Initiative: GMI
The proposed GIS Management Institute (GMI) provides an opportunity to develop a new URISA program
with a comprehensive international orientation from the very beginning. The current GMI proposal
identifies a large potential worldwide market. GMI best practices, standards, body of knowledge,
educational offerings, testing protocols, and membership requirements should be developed to support
international participation.
To ensure that the GMI is perceived from day one as a non-nation specific professional initiative, the GMI
workgroup should include international representation for developing its business plan, budget, and
operational proposal.
Key components of the GMI proposal with recommendations include:
• GIS Management Body of Knowledge (GMBOK). This would be comprised of various geospatial
management standards, best practices, and methodology documents. Each would likely be in the
range of 10-25 pages. They would set standards for assessing GIS operational maturity (via the
GISCMM) and GIS management competency for attainment of GMP status. The GMBOK as a
whole would provide a significant revenue stream to the GMI via international sales and licensing.
The GMBOK should be developed to be non-nation specific to the degree possible to ensure
international applicability.
• GIS organizational maturity level certification via the GISCMM and geospatial management
competency certification as a GMP will be based on alignment with the GMBOK, and thus be
• GIS Management Academy (GMA) and related URISA Workshops. The GMI proposal envisions
aligning current and future URISA Workshops to teach the knowledge, skills, and abilities
required for GIS organizations to enhance their operational process maturity and for GIS

DECEMBER 19, 2011
managers to prepare for the GMP exam. A new offering would be the GMA – an expanded ULA-
like academy to further prepare managers to prepare for the GMP exam, and to refine
management techniques needed to enhance organizational maturity. GMI related educational
offerings should be developed to be non-nation specific to the degree possible to ensure
international applicability.
• National Geospatial Report Card (GRC). The GMI proposal envisions development of a
‘Geospatial Report Card’ that could be applied to states, provinces, and nations to assess the
state of development of geospatial data, infrastructure, and capability. By its very nature, the
GRC will need to be non-nation specific.
• GMI ROI methodology and consulting services. The GMI proposal envisions certifying
organizational GIS ROI against the proposed Zerbe/URISA methodology. It also envisions
facilitating geospatial management consulting services. Both service offerings should be
• Geospatial Management Educational Program Certification. The GMI proposal envisions certifying
educational institutions that have geospatial management programs. This certification program
should be international in nature.
A Final Question Before Considering Action:
But for those who study and work at the local, regional, or national level, aren’t there issues that are
uniquely specific to individual nations, provinces, states and local areas? What is the relevance of an
international organization to addressing these sorts of issues? URISA supports and can continue to
support those who need to address local issues in a number of ways:
• Articles and presentations about local or regional programs and projects will always have a place
in URISA conferences, workshops, and publications. They provide a means of gauging the
success or viability of new technology or management methodology in a real world environment.
• URISA chapters already provide the perfect venue for focus on local conditions, policies, funding,
and business drivers. When URISA was originally formed, there were no chapters. Chapters
evolved both to address the travel and technology related impediments that existed during
URISA’s early years and as the perfect environment to discuss regional, provincial, and state-
specific issues.
• Those who come to the URISA events of the future will continue to analyze what they see and
hear in terms of their own unique local conditions. Conferences will continue to showcase local
projects, but the programs and audiences will be much more diverse, the solutions presented
more varied, and the discussions among attendees more intense. Those who return from the
URISA conference of the future will be much more likely to have a unique solution from a
surprising source to apply to their own local business problems.
• Those who attend URISA educational offerings and consult new URISA publications in the future
will find fewer localized case studies but more rigorous exposition of basic principles and
methodologies. The diverse body of students, interacting with the instructor and with each other
will cast the learning within their own unique local situation.
URISA’s new international focus can provide a unique opportunity for geospatial professionals to
maximize effectiveness in their own local environment.
A Goal and a Recommended Action Plan
What did the founders of URISA International envision when our organization was in its early years? Did
they even conceive that URISA would continue to exist five decades on? Whatever their vision, if they
were with us today they would very likely assume that the international participation in URISA would be
much higher than what it is today. North America represents 6% of the world’s population, but 99% of
URISA’s membership.
Can URISA set a goal for itself that within a decade, 50% of our members will be from outside of North
America? That would result in a URISA that is much different from what it is today, but it would likely be

DECEMBER 19, 2011
a URISA that is much more dynamic and relevant as the organization progresses through the 21st
Century.
The section titled ‘The Future of URISA as an International Organization’ provides many suggestions on
how we might enhance our international relevance while creating a more dynamic organization for our
current North American focused membership, thus helping to achieve a 50% membership goal. To move
forward, the following action plan is suggested:
Action Plan
• Board endorses an International Initiative with a goal of 50% of its membership from outside
North America within 10 years.
• URISA Board endorses action plan to enhance its programs and policies as an international
organization
• URISA Board considers the suggestions outlined above, along with other suggestions, and
endorses specific items to form the objectives to achieve the goal of the International Initiative.
• URISA Board designates a lead for coordinating the International Initiative
• URISA launches a marketing campaign, to both raise its presence in the international community
and to explain the initiative to its current membership base.
The proposed International Initiative should not require a major investment, because it focuses on
leveraging existing and planned programs and services. Opportunities to seek support from URISA
sponsors with significant international presence should be pursued.
Outreach:
Key components of the marketing campaign might include:
• Develop an open letter on ‘Why URISA is an International Organization’ – to be sent for
publication to all URISA chapters, directly to each URISA member, for publication in The GIS
Professional’, in the URISA Column in ArcNews, and via URISA Press Release.
• The open letter can also form part of the rationale for communicating with potential new or
prospective international chapters or affiliations (UAE, Turkey, Poland, Taiwan, etc.) and facilitate
interest in affiliation or chapter formation in other areas.
• Develop a market analysis of countries and international regions where URISA should target its
initial efforts to promote its standing as an international organization.
• Develop a plan to market the ULA and URISA Workshops to foreign and international
organizations.
• Develop a plan to market URISA Connect Webinars to students outside North America.
• Develop a plan to market ULA, URISA workshops, and conferences in Canada and outside North
America.
• Coordinate the launch of the GMI Initiative and the International Initiative.
• Promote a ‘URISA Speakers’ Bureau both within and outside North America. The Speakers Bureau
could be comprised of URISA Board Members and Past Presidents. International marketing of
URISA leaders outside North America would be a self-supporting means to demonstrate
symbolically that URISA is an international organization and to initiate actions to turn that
symbolic nature into reality.
At the beginning of this paper I posed the question whether URISA’s current standing as a professional
and educational organization attracts international members and participation, or if international
members and participation are the basis for URISA’s stature within the community. As for the world’s
best universities, I believe that the answer for URISA is - both.
However we got to where we are now, every URISA member, as geospatial professionals, will benefit
from a broader and more inclusive international focus of the organization. This broader and more
deliberate focus will also ensure that every geospatial professional and those with an interest in urban

DECEMBER 19, 2011
and regional information systems throughout the international community will find value in URISA, its
programs, and the professional relationships that it can enable.
The future of URISA International is to be faithful to its past and to Article II of its constitution as drafted
many decades in the past.
Acknowledgements
Ed Wells provided useful information regarding the ITF and possible international chapters in the past.
Shoreh Elhami provided background information on the formation of GISCorps as an outgrowth of the
ITF. Wendy Nelson and URISA HQ staff provided background data and responded to my many
questions. Cy Smith read through this proposal following his return from Australia and New Zealand and
added useful insights and suggestions.
Greg Babinski, GISP, URISA President
December 19, 2011
Attachments:
A. ITF Proposed URISA Policy International Affiliations and Liaisons (July 2002)
B. ITF Response to Board Questions on Proposed Policy
C. ITF Recommended Changes to URISA Bylaws and Policies (September 2002)
D. ITF Formal Motion to Enact Changes to URISA Bylaws and Policies (September 2002)
E. URISA-SSI Five-Year MOU (2010)

Attachment A
Proposed URISA Policy on International Affiliations and Liaisons
Draft 7/17/02
URISA International Task Force
Draft 7/16/02
I. Proposed Policy (no explanatory comments)
II. Proposed policy with explanatory comments
Kathy Covert
Shoreh Elhami
Sanjiv Gandhi
Dianne Haley
Zorica Nedovic-Budic
Shilpam Pandey
Ed Wells

I. Proposed URISA Policy on International Affiliations and Liaisons
Draft 7/16/02
1. In furtherance of its constitutional objectives and scope, and consistent with
its guiding principles, URISA shall encourage formal, mutually-beneficial
relations with other organizations, and URISA shall encourage the formation
of new URISA organizations where none exist.
2. Formal relations shall be established by board action. They may be of two
types, affiliate or liaison:
a. Affiliates share URISA’s fundamental purpose and values--matters so
central that it makes sense to share a name. Affiliates shall explicitly
adopt URISA's constitutional objectives and scope, and URISA's guiding
principles, or, at minimum, shall endorse URISA’s objectives, scope, and
guiding principles, as fundamentally consistent with their own. Affiliates
shall be encouraged to incorporate URISA into their organizational name,
and to use URISA's name and logo in publicizing the affiliation. URISA
shall generally discourage multiple affiliates within the same area, unless it
is clear that they will not be competing for the same membership.
b. Liaisons are tactical: they may be established with any other organization
desiring formal exchange with URISA on organizational goals, strategies,
or cooperative ventures.
Affiliations and liaisons are established between independent organizations.
They differ from chapters and sections, which are created and dissolved
solely within the framework of their parent organization.
3. Formal relations shall not create a significant drain on URISA's resources.
Support for affiliates or liaisons might include:
• Soliciting sponsors (such as vendors or agencies with an interest in the
area) to support new affiliates
• Cooperative ventures such as joint conferences or marketing agreements;
• Exchange of information on organizational strategies and plans;
• Reciprocal use of each other’s contact lists (to be done without violation of
members’ privacy);
• Exchange or subsidies on the use of intellectual property such as
workshops, publications, and papers;
• Mutual access to members-only websites;
• Volunteer exchanges for training and educational purposes; or,
• Reciprocal membership discounts for individuals who join more than one
affiliate (with full dues paid to the affiliate in the person’s primary area of
residence).
4. New affiliates shall be recognized by consensus of existing affiliates, not by
URISA alone. To request affiliation, an organization shall submit a formal
petition to existing affiliates. The petition shall provide the organization's
proposed name, contact information, plan of action, territory of operation, and

a statement of adherence to URISA's objectives, scope, and guiding
principles.
5. Affiliation shall be recognized by majority vote of the existing affiliates, each
affiliate certifying its vote by board action. Votes shall be taken within six
months of receipt of request. Upon approval, the new affiliate shall be
recognized as having organizing status. After one calendar year in organizing
status, the organizing affiliate shall submit a report to the active affiliates
showing that it has established an organizational structure, attracted the
membership, and carried out activities necessary to achieve the goals and
plan of action set forth in the petition. Upon acceptance of the report by board
action of a majority of the active affiliates, the new affiliate shall be recognized
as having active status.
6. Each active affiliate shall circulate at least annually to other affiliates a report
on its organization, membership, and activities.
7. Affiliate relationships may be terminated by request of the affiliate, or they
may be revoked by majority vote of the active affiliates if an affiliate becomes
inactive, or if an affiliate's actions fundamentally conflict with URISA's
constitutional objectives and scope, or with URISA's guiding principals. Upon
termination or revocation, the former affiliate shall cease to use URISA's
name and logo, and take such other steps as may be necessary to end the
affiliation in an orderly way.
8. Liaisons may be created by board action between URISA and any other
organization, and may be terminated at the discretion of either organization.
The board action shall state the scope, purpose, and term of the liaison.
9. URISA and AURISA hereby designate each other as affiliates. Their
territories are, respectively: (URISA) Canada, the United States, and the
Caribbean; (AURISA) Australia and New Zealand.
10.These policies shall be fully adopted only after full consultation with AURISA.

Draft 7/17/02--EW
With Explanatory Comments
Premises
1. We cannot sponsor international "chapters" because we have little means to
control or support them, and cannot be liable for them. This policy is therefore
framed in terms of independent organizations. It envisions a confederation, not a
hierarchy.
2. Recognition of new URISA organizations should not be the sole prerogative of
our organization. It should be by consensus of all existing URISA organizations,
of which there are now two: URISA and AURISA.
3. The most useful precedents are URISA's relation with AURISA, and URISA's
chapter polices.
Policies
1. In furtherance of its constitutional objectives and scope, and consistent with
its guiding principles, URISA shall encourage formal, mutually-beneficial
relations with other organizations, and URISA shall encourage the formation
of new URISA organizations where none exist.
Comments on 1:
• In our Board discussion last January, Dave Edwards made the
fundamental observation that we cannot really control an organization
based abroad, nor be responsible or liable for its actions. Thus this policy
is framed for independent organizations, not for chapters or individuals.
• " constitutional objectives and scope, …. guiding principles". This limits
URISA's commitment to international relationships, and gives the board
discretion in balancing that interest against other priorities. These policies
must support and be delimited by URISA's constitutional objectives and
scope, and the guiding principles in our strategic plan. This is elaborated
in policies 3 and 6.
2. Formal relations shall be established by board action. They may be of two
types, affiliate or liaison:
a. Affiliates share URISA’s fundamental purpose and values--matters so
central that it makes sense to share a name. Affiliates shall explicitly
adopt URISA's constitutional objectives and scope, and URISA's guiding
principles, or, at minimum, shall endorse URISA’s objectives, scope, and
guiding principles, as fundamentally consistent with their own. Affiliates
shall be encouraged to incorporate URISA into their organizational name,
and to use URISA's name and logo in publicizing the affiliation. URISA
shall generally discourage multiple affiliates within the same area, unless it
is clear that they will not be competing for the same membership.
b. Liaisons are tactical: they may be established with any other organization
desiring formal exchange with URISA on organizational goals, strategies,
or cooperative ventures.

Affiliations and liaisons are established between independent organizations.
They differ from chapters and sections, which are created and dissolved
solely within the framework of their parent organization.
Comments on 2:
• This policy must cover new affiliates as well as cases where seek
affiliation with an existing organization (possible example: UDMS in
Europe)
• URISA has previously defined, in another policy, "affiliate" and "liaison"
relations with other US and Canadian organizations with which URISA
shares fundamental interests. These two policies should be reconciled,
but that is beyond the initial scope of this task force.
• Should we set a minimum size for affiliates?
3. Formal relations shall not create a significant drain on URISA's resources.
• Exchange of information on organizational strategies;
residence).
Comments on 3:
• URISA does not now have the financial resources to invest significantly in
funding international affiliates. Affiliates will have to be self-supporting.
• We can offer, at little additional cost, our organizational and intellectual
property.
• Support should be offered in the context of a mutually-beneficial
relationship. We do we want from affiliates?
• Shoreh Elhami has suggested a "GIS Geek Corps", wherein URISA
members donate their expertise to agencies or projects that cannot afford
typical commercial consulting rates. This should be considered on its own
merits, independently of the International Task Force recommendations.
4. New affiliates shall be recognized by consensus of active affiliates, not by
URISA alone. To request affiliation, an organization shall submit a formal
petition to active affiliates. The petition shall provide the organization's
proposed name, contact information, goals and plan of action, territory of
operation, and a statement of adherence to URISA's objectives, scope, and
guiding principles.

5. Affiliation shall be recognized by majority vote of the active affiliates, each
affiliate certifying its vote by board action. Votes shall be taken within six
months of receipt of request. Upon approval, the new affiliate shall be
recognized as having organizing status. After one calendar year in organizing
status, the organizing affiliate shall submit a report to the active affiliates
showing that it has established an organizational structure, attracted the
membership, and carried out activities necessary to achieve the goals and
plan of action set forth in the petition. Upon acceptance of the report by board
action of a majority of the active affiliates, the new affiliate shall be recognized
as having active status.
6. Each active affiliate shall circulate at least annually to other affiliates a report
on its organization, membership, and activities.
Organizing status
Comments on 4 thru 6:
• Policies 4 and 5 are based on the vision of a confederation, not a
hierarchy: URISA should not be the sole arbiter of who gets to be an
affiliate. Certainly AURISA will have opinions that ought to be respected,
and future affiliates will too. This policy envisions a community of co-equal
affiliates, structured as an expanded version of the URISA-AURISA
relationship. Do other members of the Board concur with this premise?
• Policies 5 and 6 follow precedents in URISA's chapter policy.
7. Affiliate relationships may be terminated by request of the affiliate, or they
may be revoked by majority vote of the active affiliates if an affiliate becomes
inactive, or if an affiliate's actions fundamentally conflict with URISA's
constitutional objectives and scope, or with URISA's guiding principals. Upon
termination or revocation, the former affiliate shall cease to use URISA's
name and logo, and take such other steps as may be necessary to end the
affiliation in an orderly way.
Comments on 6:
• This protects URISA affiliates against those who might misuse URISA's
name or come into conflict with its fundamental principles.
8. Liaisons may be created by board action between URISA and any other
organization, and may be terminated at the discretion of either organization.
The board action shall state the scope, purpose and term of the liaison.
Comments on 8:
• Liaisons are created with non-affiliates for cooperation on more limited
matters of common interest. They can be created by each affiliate
independently of the others: URISA's liaisons, in most cases, will have no
reason for any liaison with AURISA.

9. URISA and AURISA hereby designate each other as affiliates. Their
territories are, respectively: (URISA) Canada, the United States, and the
Caribbean; (AURISA) Australia and New Zealand.
10.These policies shall be fully adopted only after full consultation with AURISA.
Comments on 9 and 10:
• Clearly URISA and AURISA should have a common policy on international
affiliates.
• Are URISA's constitutional objectives and scope and guiding principals
consistent with AURISA's? If not, how will we reconcile them?
• Does URISA want to extend its area to include a Caribbean chapter? Or
should we encourage the formation of a separate Caribbean URISA?
Next steps (after board discussion and decision to proceed)
• Commence consultation with AURISA
• Survey URISA members living outside the US, Canada, Caribbean, Australia,
and New Zealand to find out 1) if organizations already exist there that should
be considered for affiliation, and 2) if not, whether there is sufficient interest to
create a URISA organization there.
• Establish consistency between this policy and current policies on chapters
and liaisons.
• Consider incorporating URISA’s guiding principals into the URISA
constitution.
• Follow up on Shoreh Elhami’s “Geek Corps” idea.
• Decide if URISA’s area includes the Caribbean.
• Create a template for affiliation petitions
• Create a template for annual reports

Attachment B
TO: URISA Board
URISA International Task Force
FROM: Ed Wells
DATE: September 19, 2002
RE: Task Force Discussion of Proposed Policy on International
Affiliations and Liaisons
Two questions arose during the Board’s discussion of the proposed policy last July. This
memo provides responses from Zorica, Shoreh, and Ed, and a suggestion from Scott
Grams, as well as some discussion of other matters. For various reasons Sanjiv, Shilpam,
Dianne, and Kathy have not been able to respond, but hopefully they will be able to join
the discussion.
The intention now is to encourage discussion between task force and board members
directly, so that all questions can be considered in advance of the Board’s next meeting at
the Annual Conference.
To facilitate discussion, I have asked Scott Grams to add board members’ names to the
Task Force group list.
The discussion concerns the following questions and issues:
1. [Board question] URISA has spent 40 years building up the Association. Our
name is an asset. Should we charge a royalty for the use of the URISA name—
say, 1% of the affiliate’s gross revenues?
2. [Board question] Should affiliates give each other reciprocal membership
privileges—such as membership rates for publications and conference, or
access to members-only parts of the website?
3. [Follow-up item] We may survey our 180 or so members outside the URISA and
AURISA areas. If we do, what questions should we ask them?
4. Everyone was intrigued with Shoreh’s Geek Corps idea. If Shoreh takes the
lead, is anyone else interested in helping think through how this idea could be
put into practice?
5. Administering a Federation
6. Impact on URISA Membership
7. Miscellaneous

1. [Board question] URISA has spent 40 years building up the Association. Our
name is an asset. Should we charge a royalty for the use of the URISA name—say, 1%
of the affiliate’s gross revenues?
[Zorica 8/26] This relates to my concern about benefits to URISA from the proposed
*federation*for example discount to affiliate's members to join URISA would be more
tangible.
[Ed 8/30] I think it would be counterproductive—it would give foreign organizations a
reason NOT to affiliate with us. We have never considered charging AURISA for the use
of the name. We should not start out with one set of rules for URISA and AURISA, and
another for other affiliates.
[Shoreh 9/9] I do agree with Ed. Royalty fee might become a deterrent. Perhaps, a
different kind of fee such as an annual Affiliate Fee might be more appropriate. (Btw,
Does AURISA pay any fees to URISA?)

2. [Board question] Should affiliates give each other reciprocal membership
privileges—such as membership rates for publications and conference, or access to
members-only parts of the website?
[Zorica 8/26] A *federation* would imply this, and that will be ok. I am concerned,
however, it this will discourage anyone from international community to join URISA.
[Ed 8/30] Yes, but we must be aware of a potential problem. If all URISA organizations
offer each other reciprocal benefits, and US/Canada URISA charges $132 dues while
XYZ URISA charges $5, what prevents people from joining XYZ URISA and getting all
the US/Canada benefits? In the long run, membership would shift to the organization
charging the lowest dues, which would pressure other affiliates to lower their own dues
and try to offset revenue losses with increased prices for “services” (conference
registration, publication costs, etc.). I think this would take a long time to grow into a
significant problem, and we should leave it for others to solve in the future—perhaps by
requiring primary URISA membership to be in the country of residence.
[Scott 8/30] One member benefit that we may want to offer to these international groups
(XYZ URISAs) when they are formed is a chance to distribute the URISA Journal.
Putting together a Journal is far more complicated and expensive then offering
newsletters or online member benefits. I think that each Association should have a chance
to purchase copies of the URISA Journal at a reduced cost. This would help ease the
financial strain the Journal puts on HQ, opens up the Journal to a wider audience and one
that eventually may submit their own work, and also promotes IT/GIS education within
this umbrella organization. Of course a reasonable price would need to be attached to this
program but I think it gives our international Journal an even stronger foothold in the
global arena.
[Shoreh 9/9] Definitely. And if each affiliate only allows people from that country to join
them, that would resolve the potential problem that Ed has brought up.

3. [Follow-up item] We may survey our 180 or so members outside the URISA and
AURISA areas. If we do, what questions should we ask them?
[Zorica 8/26]
I would like to see the survey, just for the reasons mentioned above. I would ask reaction
/ support for specific options (being clear that those would be hypothetical), plus open
ended question - invitation for ideas, suggestions, comments...about URISA's
international activities. I would be glad to help with such a questionnaire.
[Ed 8/30]
---Name, country of current residence
---What organizations in your area are interested in spatial data or GIS technologies?
---Is there enough interest to support a URISA organization there?
---Would you be interested in starting a URISA organization in your area, or in being
a liaison with an existing organization?
[Shoreh 9/9]
The following questions are somewhat related to the idea of GIS Peace Corp or GPC:
---What types of incentives (from URISA) would encourage more involvement, either to
form an affiliate or to join as an individual?
---Would your organization be interested in hosting URISA lead technical workshops or
studio training sessions in your country?
---If so, what kinds of workshops would you be interested in?
---What types of services could you provide for such an event (accommodation, computer
lab, etc.)?
---What is the level of expertise of people who might attend these workshops?

Everyone was intrigued with Shoreh’s Geek Corps idea. If Shoreh takes the lead, is
anyone else interested in helping think through how this idea could be put into
practice?
[Zorica 8/26] I agree this is a good idea. As i see it URISA (with Shoreh's lead) would
serve as a link/facilitator for this -- advertising the corps, contacting parties in need of
training and keeping track of the volunteers. This alone, however, could be a separate
initiative, and i can see that it would require a careful policy (who can volunteer, whose
support is acceptable, vendors?), etc.
[Ed 8/30] Shoreh, please put me on the e-mail list!
[Shoreh 9/9] My sincere thanks goes to Ed (you are the first volunteer on the list!) and
others who have sent me emails or talked to me in support of the GIS Peace Corp idea. I
am still quite excited about the idea of GPC and have thought more about its practicality.
I have come up with several questions/comments which I would love to get the
committee’s feed back on. Since this document is not the right place to list those
questions, please let me know if you’re interested and I’ll email it to you.

Administering a federation
[Zorica 8/26] Generally, consistent to my previous feelings, I have some concerns of the
benefits that would ensue from administering this *exciting* but nevertheless quite
complex *federation* system. For example, using just the policy point #5 we can try to
forsee, the administrative tasks and sensitivities that may ensue from this initiative. This
point (and a few others) assume the affiliate organization will be in formation (although,
there is a mentioning about this to be addressed). Endorsing URISA's objectives, scope
and guiding principles (from point 1) is ok, but how would URISA take the
responsibility to check on the progress of affiliate organization in "establishing org.
structure, attracted membership and carried out activities necessary to achieve the goals
and plan of action set forth in the petition?" And who would enforce this, including
changing status from inactive to active, etc. It actually sounds more patronizing than a
*federation* may want to be. The board of the boards (perhaps 10, 20 or more of its
members) would then be spending time checking on each others "fidelity" to URISA.
With an established organization, it may be even more difficult to re-chart its ways to fit
the URISA direction. I would like to see some real benefit to URISA (current and
potential / expanded one) from getting into such initiative. Required membership (with
discount maybe - unless, URISA - main - members found that unfair), or something else?
[Ed 8/30] We should be so lucky as to have these problems! Before we do, though, we
must first have several affiliates. That will take a few years. (We have had two affiliates
for twenty-five years now, with no problems. Even four would be pretty easy.) Annual
reports need not be any more complex than our chapter profiles are now. We can work
out the details over time, looking to ISPRS and other international societies for ideas. As
for enforcement, I think it would be very rare, so rare that it could be done on a case-by-
case basis. (For example, I read this week that the World Psychatric Association is
investigating charges that China uses psychiatric hospitals to silence political and
religious dissidents. The British Royal College of Psychiatrists has demanded that the
Chinese Psychiatric Association be barred if the charges are found to be true.)
[Shoreh 9/9] On this one I must say that I do not believe that administrating the
federations would put a great burden on the HQ. After serving on the ESIG committee for
a couple of years and now on the chapter relations committee and having the task of
evaluating exemplary systems in government and the best chapter of the year, I do
believe that another similar committee could evaluate and review the activities of
affiliates in a similar manner with minimal trouble.

2. Impact on URISA Membership
[Zorica 8/26] I am concerned, however, that [a federation] will discourage anyone from
international community to join URISA.
[Ed 8/30] Currently less than 2% of URISA members live outside the URISA and
AURISA territories, and a number of those are expatriates. On the other hand,
organizations on other continents may increase URISA membership, by bringing URISA
to the attention of people there. Either way, I think the impact will be insignificant.
[Shoreh 9/9] I agree. Numbers are too low to be alarming.
Miscellaneous
[Zorica 8/26] Minor editorials: 2a, line 8 - I would add "geographic" in front of Area
point 9.
[Ed 8/30] I agree.
[Shoreh 9/9] Agree
[Zorica 8/26] I believe I suggested in my July mail that AURISA's territory includes Asia
(that is how they call themselves - Australasian URISA)
[Ed 8/30] In fact, virtually their entire membership comes from Australia and New
Zealand, so I consider that to be their de facto territory (just as URISA International’s
territory covers only the US and Canada, (and maybe the Caribbean), even though
“International” could be interpreted to cover the world).
[Shoreh 9/9] I’m confused. Does AURISA include Asia or not?

Attachment C
TO: URISA Board and URISA International Task Force
FROM: Ed Wells
DATE: September 19, 2002
RE: Integrating the Proposed Policy on International Affiliations And Liaisons
With URISA’s Constitution, Bylaws, and Policies.
At the July board meeting, Lyna Wiggins asked if the proposed policy on international
affiliations and liaisons conflicted with URISA’s constitution, bylaws, or policies. I have
read them and found no constitutional provisions, one bylaw, one policy, and one passage
in the Chapter Leaders’ Manual that pertain to matters covered by the proposed policy.
This memo presents the relevant bylaw and policies, and recommendations for
integrating the proposed policy with them. The result provides a coherent general
framework for all affiliates and liaisons, both international and domestic.
I. Relevant Bylaw, Policy, and CLM Paragraphs
1. Bylaw 204(IV)(c)--Liaisons
Bylaw 204 lists URISA’s four divisions and, for each division, sets forth the charges of
URISA’s standing committees. Part 204(IV) covers the Outreach Division Committees,
which are Chapter Relations, Industry Relations, and Liaisons. Part (c), on Liaisons,
reads in full:
“c. Liaisons: Liaisons are individuals appointed to interface to interface with related
organizations to facilitate the active participation, cooperative programs, and exchange of
ideas.”
By defining “liaison” as the person, the bylaw conflicts with both the existing and
proposed policy, wherein “liaison” refers to the inter-organizational relationship, not the
contact person. By not placing liaisons in the charge of any specific committee, the bylaw
has fostered some neglect of these relationships.
2. Policy on Administrative/Governance—“Liaison Development in URISA” (May
2, 1998)
A three-page policy specifies guiding principles and criteria for evaluating, establishing,
and terminating liaison relationships, and procedures and forms for creating and
monitoring liaison relationships. The existing policy is much more detailed than the
proposed policy, but the two do not conflict.
3. Chapter Leaders Manual--Section 8—Affiliate Organizations
Referring to a board action unrecorded in URISA’s bylaws or policies, the manual says:

“In 1995, the URISA Board of Directors adopted a different way to work with
existing state and local organizations that are not currently URISA Chapters. This
partnership is called an affiliate relationship….
In an affiliate relationship, the state or local organization and URISA agree to
share mailing lists, provide access to business partners, and share intellectual
resources such as publications, speakers’ bureaus, and workshops. For the state
or local organization, becoming a URISA affiliate means expanded access to
similar organizations across the country, URISA workshops and publications, and
speakers’ bureau. For URISA, the affiliate provides a mechanism to encourage
organizations with missions similar to URISA’s to network nation-wide.”
Currently we have only one affiliate, the Wisconsin Land Information Association. Do
we “share mailing lists, provide access to business partners, and share intellectual
resources” with WLIA? Not that I am aware of, but others might know better.
II. Recommendations
We can integrate the current bylaw, current policy, and proposed policy by adopting six
recommendations. They are summarized below. Proposed text is given on the following
pages.
Recommendation 1: Bylaw Revision
By board action, after discussion with the CRC, either create an Inter-organizational
Relations Committee, or expand the charge of the Chapter Relations Committee to
include affiliations and liaisons, and rename the committee accordingly.
Personally, I favor unifying both responsibilities under the CRC if they want to take on
the challenge. It would simplify administration and reporting. Also, chapter matters seem
largely settled, the committee seems to have lost vitality as a result, and a new challenge
might revitalize the committee.
Recommendation 2: New Bylaw
By board action, adopt a bylaw defining affiliations and liaisons, and specifying that they
are established and dissolved by the board, based on the current bylaw and on item 2 of
the draft policy presented last July.
Recommendation 3: New Policy
Adopt a general policy on relations with other organizations, based on the new bylaw and
on items 1 and 3 of the draft policy that was considered last July.
Recommendation 4: New Policy
Tentatively adopt a policy on international affiliates (pending discussion with AURISA),
based on items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the draft policy that was considered last July.
Recommendation 5: Policy Amendment
Amend the policy on liaisons by adding one sentence at the beginning, and one sentence
from item 8 of the draft policy that was considered last July.

Recommendation 6: Chapter Leaders’ Manual Revision
Ask the chapter relations committee, as part of its next annual revision of the Chapter
Leaders’ Manual, to revise the paragraphs on affiliates so they are consistent with the
new bylaw and policies.

III. Proposed Text for Recommendations 1-5
Recommendation 1: Proposed Bylaw Amendment
Replace bylaw 204(IV)(c) with the following:
“c. Inter-organizational Relations Committee. The Inter-organizational Relations
Committee facilitates and administers URISA’s relations with other organizations.”
--OR--
Rescind bylaw 204(IV)(c), and amend bylaw 204(IV)(a) to read in full:
“a. Chapter and Inter-organizational Relations Committee. [Existing sentence unchanged.
Add the following sentence.] The committee also facilitates and administers URISA’s
relations with other organizations.”
Recommendation 2: Proposed Bylaw on Inter-organizational Relations
[This would logically be Bylaw 206, with the following bylaws through 210 renumbered
accordingly.]
“206. Inter-organizational Relations:
“1. Formal inter-organizational relations shall be established and dissolved by Board
action, and administered by the Outreach Committee. Formal relations may be of two
types, affiliate or liaison.
“2. Affiliation is a long-term relation established by Board action between URISA and an
independent organization with interests and values fundamentally similar to URISA’s.
“3. Liaison is a relation established by Board action between URISA and an independent
organization desiring formal exchange with URISA on organizational goals, strategies,
cooperative ventures, or other matters of mutual interest.
“4. Affiliations and liaisons are established between independent organizations. Affiliates
and liaison organizations differ from chapters and sections, which are created and
dissolved solely within the framework of their parent organization.”
[Current bylaws 206-210 would be renumbered 207-211 respectively.]
Recommendation 3: Proposed General Policy on Relations with Other
Organizations
1. “In furtherance of its constitutional objectives and scope, and consistent with its
guiding principles, URISA shall encourage formal, mutually-beneficial relations with
other organizations, and URISA shall encourage the formation of new URISA
organizations where none exist.
2. “As specified in URISA Bylaw 204(IV)(c), formal relations may be of two types,
affiliate or liaison, and they shall be established and dissolved by board action.
3. “Formal relations shall not create a significant drain on URISA's resources. Support
for affiliates or liaisons might include:
• Soliciting sponsors (such as vendors or agencies with an interest in the area) to
support new affiliates

• Exchange or subsidies on the use of intellectual property such as workshops,
publications, and papers;
• Reciprocal membership discounts for individuals who join more than one affiliate
(with full dues paid to the affiliate in the person’s primary area of residence).”
Recommendation 4: Proposed Policy on International Affiliates
[Note: Two text changes are highlighted. The first states the reason for creating
international affiliates. The second change deletes the statement that affiliates should
explicitly adopt URISA’s mission and principles—upon reflection, I felt it better to leave
more leeway for local conditions and established organizations.]
“Consistent with its general policy on relations with other organizations, URISA
encourages the creation of international affiliations with organizations outside the US and
Canada, with the goal of fostering an international network of organizations sharing
URISA’s objectives, scope, and guiding principles.
1. International affiliates shall explicitly adopt URISA's constitutional objectives and
scope, and URISA's guiding principles, or, at minimum, shall endorse URISA’s
objectives, scope, and guiding principles, as fundamentally consistent with their own.
2. International affiliates shall be encouraged to incorporate URISA into their
organizational name, and to use URISA's name and logo in publicizing the affiliation.
3. URISA shall generally discourage the creation of multiple affiliates within the same
area, unless it is clear that they will not be competing for the same membership.
4. New affiliates shall be recognized by consensus of existing affiliates, not by URISA
alone. To request affiliation, an organization shall submit a formal petition to existing
affiliates. The petition shall provide the organization's proposed name, contact
information, plan of action, territory of operation, and a statement of adherence to
URISA's objectives, scope, and guiding principles.
5. Affiliation shall be recognized by majority vote of the existing affiliates, each affiliate
certifying its vote by board action. Votes shall be taken within six months of receipt
of request. Upon approval, the new affiliate shall be recognized as having organizing
status. After one calendar year in organizing status, the organizing affiliate shall
submit a report to the active affiliates showing that it has established an
organizational structure, attracted the membership, and carried out activities
necessary to achieve the goals and plan of action set forth in the petition. Upon
acceptance of the report by board action of a majority of the active affiliates, the new
affiliate shall be recognized as having active status.
6. Each active affiliate shall circulate at least annually to other affiliates a report on its
organization, membership, and activities.
7. Affiliate relationships may be terminated by request of the affiliate, or they may be
revoked by majority vote of the active affiliates if an affiliate becomes inactive, or if
an affiliate's actions fundamentally conflict with URISA's constitutional objectives

and scope, or with URISA's guiding principals. Upon termination or revocation, the
former affiliate shall cease to use URISA's name and logo, and take such other steps
as may be necessary to end the affiliation in an orderly way.
8. URISA and AURISA hereby designate each other as affiliates. Their territories are,
respectively: (URISA) Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean; (AURISA)
Australia and New Zealand.
9. These policies shall be fully adopted only after full consultation with AURISA. “
Recommendation 5: Proposed Amendment to Liaison Policy
1. Add the following sentence at the beginning of the policy: “Consistent with its
general policy on relations with other organizations, URISA encourages the creation
of mutually-beneficial liaisons with other organizations.”
2. Amend the paragraph following the “URISA Liaison Proposal Form” by adding the
following sentence at the end: “The board action shall state the scope, purpose, and
term of the liaison.”

Attachment D
TO: URISA Board and URISA International Task Force
FROM: Ed Wells
DATE: October 1, 2002
RE: Formal Motions to Enact the Policy Recommendations of the International
Task Force
URISA’s constitution and bylaws provide that bylaws may be changed by two-thirds
majority vote of the board, provided the proposed change has been mailed to the board at
least 20 days prior to the meeting at which the change is to be voted on.
The International Task Force policy recommendations discussed last July require two
changes to URISA’s bylaws, and four policy actions by the Board. I am circulating them
now, in advance of the 20-day notification deadline, so that they may be considered as an
integrated whole at the Board’s during meeting during the annual conference.
The six motions are given on the following pages. They can be amended during Board
discussion. The first motion is given in two alternate forms.
Background information can be found in three documents transmitted with this one:
1. The proposed policy as it was presented last July
2. Responses to Board questions and other issues raised during and after the July
meeting
3. Recommendations for making the proposed policy consistent with URISA’s existing
bylaws and policies (the immediate source of the six motions set forth herein).
All three of these documents were circulated in mid-September to the Board and the
International Task Force.

Motion 1a: Amending Bylaw 204(IV)(a), to rename the Chapter Relations
Committee and give it responsibility for the facilitation and administration of
relations with other organizations.
Bylaw 204(IV)(a), reading in full:
“a. Chapter Relations Committee: This committee facilitates communications
between the Chapters and between the URISA Board and Chapters, and assists
Chapters with organization and development.”
Is hereby amended to read as follows:
“a. Chapter and External Relations Committee. This committee facilitates
communications between the Chapters and between the URISA Board and
Chapters, and assists Chapters with organization and development. The
committee also facilitates and administers URISA’s relations with other
organizations.”
--OR—Motion 1b: Creating an External Relations Committee:
Bylaw 204(IV)(c), reading in full:
“c. Liaisons: Liaisons are individuals appointed to interface to interface with
related organizations to facilitate the active participation, cooperative programs,
and exchange of ideas.”
Is hereby rescinded and replaced with the following:
“c. Inter-organizational Relations Committee. The Inter-organizational Relations
Committee facilitates and administers URISA’s relations with other
organizations.”

Motion 2: Rescinding Bylaw 204(IV)(c) if necesssary; renumbering bylaws 206
through 210 as 207 through 211, respectively; and enacting a new Bylaw 206,
defining external relations as either affiliate or liaison, and making the Board solely
responsible for their establishment and dissolution.
Bylaw 204(IV)(c), reading in full:
“c. Liaisons: Liaisons are individuals appointed to interface to interface with
related organizations to facilitate the active participation, cooperative programs,
and exchange of ideas.”
If not already rescinded by enactment of Motion 1b above, is hereby rescinded, and
Bylaws 206 through 210 are hereby renumbered 207 through 211, respectively, and
A new bylaw 206 is hereby enacted, reading in full:
“206. External Relations:
“1. Formal inter-organizational relations shall be established and dissolved by
Board action, and administered within the Outreach Division. Formal relations
may be of two types, affiliate or liaison.
“2. Affiliation is a long-term relation established by Board action between URISA
and an independent organization with interests and values fundamentally similar
to URISA’s.
“3. Liaison is a relation established by Board action between URISA and an
independent organization desiring formal exchange with URISA on organizational
goals, strategies, cooperative ventures, or other matters of mutual interest.
“4. Affiliations and liaisons are established between independent organizations.
Affiliates and liaison organizations differ from chapters and sections, which are
created and dissolved solely within the framework of their parent organization.”

Motion 3: Adopting a general policy on relations with other organizations
The Board hereby adopts the following policy on relations with other organizations:
“Relations with Other Organizations
1. “In furtherance of its constitutional objectives and scope, and consistent with
its bylaws and guiding principles, URISA shall encourage formal, mutually-
beneficial relations with other organizations, and URISA shall encourage the
formation of new URISA organizations where none exist.
2. “Formal relations shall not create a significant drain on URISA's resources.
residence).”

Motion 4: Provisionally adopting a policy on international affiliates, pending
discussion with AURISA
The Board hereby provisionally adopts the following policy on international affiliates,
pending discussion with AURISA, and charges the president with communicating this
provisional policy to AURISA and initiating discussions:
“Policy on International Affiliates
“Consistent with its general policy on relations with other organizations, URISA
encourages the creation of international affiliations with organizations outside the US
and Canada, with the goal of fostering an international network of organizations sharing
URISA’s objectives, scope, and guiding principles.
1. International affiliates shall endorse URISA’s objectives, scope, and guiding
principles, as fundamentally consistent with their own.
2. International affiliates shall be encouraged to incorporate URISA into their
organizational name, and to use URISA's name and logo in publicizing the affiliation.
3. URISA shall generally discourage the creation of multiple affiliates within the same
area, unless it is clear that they will not be competing for the same membership.
4. New affiliates shall be recognized by consensus of existing affiliates, not by URISA
alone. To request affiliation, an organization shall submit a formal petition to existing
affiliates. The petition shall provide the organization's proposed name, contact
information, plan of action, territory of operation, and a statement of adherence to
URISA's objectives, scope, and guiding principles.
5. Affiliation shall be recognized by majority vote of the existing affiliates, each affiliate
certifying its vote by board action. Votes shall be taken within six months of receipt
of request. Upon approval, the new affiliate shall be recognized as having organizing
status. After one calendar year in organizing status, the organizing affiliate shall
submit a report to the active affiliates showing that it has established an
organizational structure, attracted the membership, and carried out activities
necessary to achieve the goals and plan of action set forth in the petition. Upon
acceptance of the report by board action of a majority of the active affiliates, the new
affiliate shall be recognized as having active status.
6. Each active affiliate shall circulate at least annually to other affiliates a report on its
organization, membership, and activities.
7. Affiliate relationships may be terminated by request of the affiliate, or they may be
revoked by majority vote of the active affiliates if an affiliate becomes inactive, or if
an affiliate's actions fundamentally conflict with URISA's constitutional objectives and
scope, or with URISA's guiding principals. Upon termination or revocation, the former
affiliate shall cease to use URISA's name and logo, and take such other steps as
may be necessary to end the affiliation in an orderly way.
8. URISA and AURISA hereby designate each other as affiliates. Their territories are,
respectively: (URISA) Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean; (AURISA)
Australia and New Zealand.
9. These policies shall be fully adopted only after full consultation with AURISA. “

Motion 5: Amendments to Liaison Policy
The Board hereby amends the Liaison Policy by:
1. Adding the following sentence at the beginning of the policy:
“Consistent with its general policy on relations with other organizations,
URISA encourages the creation of mutually-beneficial liaisons with other
organizations.”
2. Amending the paragraph following the “URISA Liaison Proposal Form” by adding
the following sentence at the end:
“The board action shall state the scope, purpose, and term of the liaison.”
Motion 6: Charging the Chapter and External Relations Committee with Revising
the Chapter Leaders’ Manual to be consistent with the bylaws and policies adopted
or amended by Motions 1-5 above.
The Board hereby charges the Chapter and External Relations Committee with revising
the Chapter Leaders Manual so as to be consistent with the bylaws and policies adopted
or amended by Motions 1-5 above.

The future of urisa as an international organization

The future of urisa as an international organization

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The future of urisa as an international organization

Similar to The future of urisa as an international organization (20)

More from Greg Babinski

More from Greg Babinski (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The future of urisa as an international organization