Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

The concept seems to be that up to this point the system has not worked.  DNSO
has offered to review why it has not worked.  The new constituency is an
opportunity to show that it can work.  If the response is a non-response then
abolishment is justified.

I feel a little uneasy about this approach in that it appears that Karl and Joop
and others have already tried to effectuate positive changes and have seen an
iligitimate result.  However, this review may be the first true attemp and I
would like to see it through.

Sincerely,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sotiris,
> The second poll seems to me to show that (more or less) the same people who
> would vote to abolish the DNSO constituencies given the choice, would
> equally vote to have one for individuals if the other objective were not
> possible. I believe even Karl has supports this position. Would you really
> want to block any representation whatsoever for individuals until the
> objective of dismantling the DNSO had been achieved, even if that were to
> take more than 2 years (giving time for the 'Large study had been completed
> etc.)?
>
> Suggestion:- If we were to replace the word "added" with "formed" in the
> Chris McElroy/ David Farrar Motion, would this remove your doubts? Then
> there would be no possible implied endorsement of existing failings of DNSO
> Constituency Structure, while still allowing the idea of a constituency, any
> constituency to go forward, with or without DNSO, with or without NC.  We
> can leave that part to further WG-Review to work out the form etc. as per
> the rest of the motion. If not, what is your suggestion?
>
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Sotiropoulos
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:49 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Greg Burton; wg Review list
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
>
> 1/15/01 12:24:05 PM, Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
>
> >These are seperate and distinct consensus's.  Let us not sidetrack the
> first one and mose forward seperately on the second.
>
> Why not?  The questions in the first survey "consensus" did not include the
> question of whether the constituency system was acceptable to begin with.
> It was just assumed, out of hand and de facto.  The second poll shows that
> this was a mistake.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>            Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> >Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >> 1/15/01 10:05:12 AM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus - support for
> us
> >> >to recommend a constituency of some kind here.
> >>
> >> Actually Greg, I'd say that there was more widespread support for the
> dissolution of the constitency structure.  In fact it appears to be a
> majority, check
> it
> >> out: http://pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/tzk27voon5_a
> >>
> >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>           Hermes Network, Inc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> --
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard