Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:15:10 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:

>i will say it again... frankly, i feel that an individual constituancy is a
>good idea and have expressed that opinion on numerous occasions. i only am
>concerned that the constituancy is "inclusive enough" and have viewed over
>the last 18 months a continual strife in the ga to accomplish this
>"inclusiveness" goal. as you are aware.

Ken - thanks for the above post which I found very useful.  One of the
things I suggested early on was that we should try and obtain
consensus firstly on whether the principle of an IDNH constituency is
supported and then after that work on some guidelines for how it can
be constructed so that it is inclusive, democratic, representative
etc.

So far I have not seen anyone at all state they are against the
principle of an IDNH constituency and in fact many people now
including yourself have said they are in favour.  Therefore are we as
a Working Group in a position to state that (for as long as there is a
constituency structure) we believe the DNSO will be enhanced by the
addition of an IDNH constituency.  If no-one objects to this statement
within 48 hours can we take it as accepted?

This does not bind everyone into automatically supporting any
particular application but it does then allow us to work
constructively on the best way to move forward such a constituency
rather than continue debates about whether individuals should have
representation at all.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html