RE: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion, AMENDMENTS

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

At 14:28 20/10/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>1) I would rather keep it very simple, not giving them anything to get
>distracted about. This includes request of reaffirmation. They've already
>affirmed it once, don't give them a chance to re-open an old debate.

Up to you, but I think with the additional clause your motion will gain 
broader consensus.

>2) This also goes for election/representation issues. They do not touch
>bicamerality, which is a structure and not a process. Membership
>qualifications, in the GA, are already established. So are membership
>qualification in the NC. Not only do they not need to be changed but, even
>suggesting that we do so makes this entire motion open to diversion. IMHO,
>we've had sufficient diversion. We have sufficient process for now to handle
>bicamerality and to create more process if this actually gets moved forward.
>First we instantiate the concept and then we make it work.

I understand where you are coming from.
Good, as long as you realize that the IDNowners start with a heavily 
diluted "GA chamber" full of converse interests.
This is almost like the compromise that Roberto proposed in Melbourne.
It's better than nothing, that's all.


--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