RE: [wg-d] GA Definition Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

No, the GA was part of the compromise that allowed the creation of the DNSO.

It was abundantly apparent the constituency mechanism was going to be used
to exclude various people and organizations from participation in the DNSO,
and this has turned out to be the fact.

The GA was the mechanism whereby those excluded from constituencies could
participate in the DNSO.

If this is in fact -not- to be recognized as the compromise, i.e. change the
deal after it was made,
then we may consider the DNSO -defunct- as of this moment.

D Schutt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Randy
Bush
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 1:41 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: wg-d@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-d] GA Definition Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly -
Revised Agenda


> Indeed. I am Image Online Design's representative to the gTLD
> constituency, but AM NOT ALLOWED IN. So which other
> constituency would I fit in? None except the GA.

the ga is not a constituency.  it is where the constituencies meet.

if some sector feels disenfranchised, then that needs to be addressed as a
constituency issue.  do not try to turn a sofa into a horse because you lack
a ride.

randy