<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: Re[3]: [ga-ext]The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]
At 22:13 11/05/01 -0700, NameCritic wrote:
>On this we agree. It is simpler and more viable to ask them to accept an IC
>or an IDNHC first with some suggestion as to how it will be formed or how
>existing orgs can apply for this.
>
I have no problem agreeing with this too.
This is why the proposed motion itself speaks about an IC and makes no
mention of the IDNO.
If the GA wants to endorse the motion with all the considerations included,
I will not stand in the way if the passage about the IDNO petition is deleted.
-joop
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-ext@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-ext" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|