Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

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

At 14:34 16/01/01 -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>I think question #4 needs some work before a poll is taken. I am not sure
>what the purpose a Names Council will serve in the absence of
>constituencies. If you vote to support abolition of  the constituencies, it
>seems to me that the NC must go too; otherwise, you have a structure that is
>worse, not better, than the status quo. It seems a bit silly to vote to get
>rid of a structure without careful thinking about what should replace it.
>Are we polling too quickly?
>

Rod,

I agree with you. With so many participants pressing for a poll in order to
settle the argument of  "you have no support" we are polling too quickly.
The Chair should first put up the final version of  questions for rough
consensus and *then* instruct a Polling Officer to put it up.

In the meantime I'm doing the best possible.
This is why the question #4 encourages voters to come with their own
suggestions on the comment line, so that this input stays in one place on
the web and can be taken up for further discussion and further polling.
This is an information gathering exercise.

More discussion on an NC without constituencies (is it politically
realistic?) is needed.
An NC without constituencies is possible, but it should then be larger, so
that it can accommodate natural alliances and factions arising from an
election from among the members of the GA.




--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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