[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR

To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>, ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:34:37 +1300
In-Reply-To: <20000110115200.C17720@songbird.com>
References: <20000110112606.B8624@home.com><20000110112606.B8624@home.com>
Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

At 11:52 10/01/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>The PAB rules have the entertaining property of actually having been
>used, successfully, and in that regard are indeed different from yours. 
>:-) 
>

Kent and all,

The PAB is not something like the GA.
Rules that may work for a grouping  relatively united in its purpose will
not work for an Assembly that is as diverse as a Parliament. 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
  - From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>

References:
- [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
  - From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>
- [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
  - From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>
- Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [ga] The Jeff Williams filter
Next by Date: Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
Prev by thread: Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
Next by thread: Re: [ga] PAB rules v. RROR
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread