Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

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

Joop position here has my full support.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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
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