Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.

Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I think we need
great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.

The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
dialogue and consensus building.

      -- Bret

--
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