Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 07:23 1/09/01, you wrote:
>DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> > If we seek to thwart the effort to have the At-Large Board Directors 
> reduced
> > from nine to six, we need to organize a counter proposal.
>
>Do we? Or do we just need to argue that there must be /at least/ as many
>openly elected At Large board members as there are representatives of various
>special interests?

With all respect for Danny and his boundless energy, this is a good 
question to ask and one necessary to deal with first before we get 
sidetracked with the most contentious issue of them all: drawing lines 
across  a globe.
I can see where you are coming from Danny, and it should be a good 
*additional* argument to have more specific regions represented.
My own instinct would be  to let the @large members themselves determine 
(by way of a referendum) if and how they want to be carved up. By all 
means, we can propose the blocs, but @large members  everywhere should be 
free to vote for whoever they think will do best for them, inside or 
outside their regional bloc.
They have to find a way to judge their candidates on something more and 
other than his "regionality".

This is where the Individuals' constituency in the DNSO comes in: as a way 
for the @large members to judge and compare their future Board candidates.


--Joop

--
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