[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] GA Definition Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda
my reply to Bret, Elisabeth, and Antony on GA and its members are as follows
as i stated earlier to ga@dnso.org;
1. let's create ga-member@dnso.org(or use announce@dnso.org if we can agree).
initial members consist of announce@dnso.org and/or ga@dnso.org.
2. let's encourage all members of the seven constituencies to join
ga-members, and hope we will have several hundred members from the
current 130+ for ga@dnso.org.
the abvoe scheme would give reasonable "outreach" for GA.
chon
PS: ga-member@dnso.org(or announce@dnso.org) should be moderated so that
people receive announcement from the secretariat. if the member wants
to have discussion, join ga@dnso.org, which may be renamed as
ga-discuss@dnso.org as appropriate.
*******************************************************************************
On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> >Furthermore I am still in limbo concerning GA definition.
> >I was completely disturbed by the volume of ga@dnso.org
> >contributions, but even Antony summary to the WGD, much more quiet,
> >is only questionning:
> ....
>
> >And I am very concerned by some people not willing to be in any
> >constituency but remaining in the GA, and requesting votes for GA.
>
> I think this comes from the fact that not every individual fits into a
> particular constituency at the present time. Perhaps the recognition of
> the NCDNHC and the IDNO (or the opening of the other constituencies to
> individuals) will give everyone a place to vote for NC members. But, that
> said, assuming that we can address the problems summarized by Antony
> about identity and voting, I personally see no problem with persons
> joining only the GA.
>
> >Could we address here this role of GA being "political dissedents" ?
> >I think it was not foreseen in initial DNSO drafts (at least not
> >in Paris one), and it is clearly human nature aspect.
>
> My perception is that what you're identifying as political dissent in the
> GA is a result of the fact that the NCDNHC and the IDNO are not yet
> recognized, the persons who fall into those categories are understandably
> upset about their lack of recognition, and the only available forum for
> their participation, at present, is the GA. I assume that these two
> constituencies will be recognized in Santiago, so perhaps the GA will
> take on a different character then.
>
> -- Bret