Re: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

>on 8/8/01 3:42 PM, DPF at david@farrar.com wrote:
> > IMO there must be two
> > stages to the process.  The first is that either the NC or the Board
> > should give approval in principle that there should be a Registrant's
> > Constituency in the DNSO.  This is not a complex matter and to date
> > no-one has managed to argue why individual registrants should not in
> > principle have the same rights as business registrants and
> > organisation registrants.
> >
> > *If* such approval in principle is given with perhaps a deadline for a
> > detailed proposal then a detailed proposal you shall have.  Myself and
> > many others will spend dozens of hours on coming up with a superb
> > proposal.  However what motivation is there to do so when previous
> > attempts have all ended in nought.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > david@farrar.com
> > ICQ 29964527
>
>David,
>
>I believe there has been a shift in position over the past few months at 
>top
>level on issues including an Individual's consituency. That should be 
>enough
>motivation to prepare documentation and submit to Montevideo.

I think that it is essential that something innovative, and of weight, is 
prepared for Montevideo.
The idea of "Registrants" instead of "Individuals" may be the key to 
overcome some objections and to present a new view on the matter.
But the key is that the proposal should not be just a declaration of 
principle, but get into details like:
- define the members (not completely obvious, IMHO)
- establish the funding
- address problems like multiple identities
- avoid potential capture
- allow participation other than from registrants from organizations
just to start a list of.

>
>In Stockholm, the Board acknowledged the motion presented by the GA for an
>Individuals Constituency, but requested further details be presented at
>Montevideo about what they were being asked to approve, which does not seem
>to me to be an unreasonable request. Following that, Karl Auerbach has
>prepared a Board resolution, which could be regarded as a further incentive
>to prepare some proper supporting documention. Now we have Peter De Blanc, 
>a
>member of the NC and declared supporter of an individual's constitunecy,
>pressing for supporting documents, again not an unreasonable request and an
>incentive to make a more formal submission through the GA at this time.
>
>If you are prepared to spend dozens of hours preparing a superb proposal,
>that is great news. Count me in. And if you want to use one of the idle
>sub-lists for the purpose, it is ready and waiting.

Or maybe use the main list, as I assume that the matter is of general 
interest.
It is the Chair's pick, I would say.


>
>Given the timeframe before Montevideo and the need to accomodate
>longstanding supporters of an individual's constituency in any formal
>proposal made, I would invite the IDNO to submit clean copies of all
>relevant documents to the GA list for further discussion and debate. Of
>course, more than one proposal may go forward, but ideally, we may reach
>consensus following Best Practice procedures of the GA, which are now at 
>our
>disposal.
>
>There really is no excuse for not producing this stuff IMO.
>

Agree.
For my part, I can keep the Review TF informed.

Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html