RE: [wg-review] Final Draft on constituency recommendation

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

On 19:49 10/04/01 -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said:
>
>Joop,
>
>I agree with all of your suggestions except the first one. The language in
>the recommendation is intended to allow the Board to support the
>recommendation without the need for concern by some Board members or
>confusion among various self-organizers  that may arise if it were thought
>that a particular group were being supported before an actual proposal were
>submitted. Self-organizing formation process will serve the purpose of
>organizing the IC once the Board calls for proposals for establishment of
>the constituency. Hence, the need for language to show that the process is
>not intended to be flimflam. The language regarding recognition "in
>principle" is too weak. It provides very little over the status quo. 

Rod,

I see and appreciate  where you are coming from.
The status quo is that the IDNO petitioned the Board for "recognition in
principle" in Berlin and that the Board refused to deal with the request
(as L.Touton told me, the Board made an unpublished resolution not to
address the issue).  At the same time the NCDNHC was not recognized as a
constituency, but it received "recognition in principle", which was enough
to get them organized.

Therefore, it does mean something and aids the process of self-organizing.
I am just concerned that the stronger language ("call for the formation")
may be thrown out as "not conform the Bylaws".

If our new @Large Board members make a motion in Stockholm, they may well
choose to motion that "the the Board act in accordance with the Bylaws and
*create* a new DNSO constituency, following the recommendations of the
WG-review".


I think
>we should be   consistent with the establishment of the other
>constituencies. The Board made the commitment first, and the self-organizing
>followed.

Correct.

 >We have tried it the other way, and that simply did not work.

True. Without the knowledge that the effort is in any way going to be
accepted, very few people are willing to donate their creative energy or
membership fees.

>Let's use the stronger language, get the Board's commitment, and allow the
>various groups to self-organize with a tangible goal this time.  The prior
>efforts need not be wasted, but if we attempt to force the Board to ratify
>those efforts, the more important goal might be jeopardized.

Yes, that I accept. We do not want this to end in an argument about which
organizing effort is representative and which isn't.
We must also be careful that the Board will not hobble the new constituency
with unworkable rules.
I am thinking here of Joanna's point about "contrary" interests.
A big handicap for the young IDNO was that fact that it had to admit
members belonging to other constituencies. (the Bylaws demand this) . The
NCDNHC suffers from this too... 
It is is no problem when a constituency is big and vibrant, but it's a
killer in the bootstrap phase. 


--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/


--
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