Re: [ga] GA Agenda - additional points

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Joop,

>Respectfully disagree, Roberto.
>This issue has been discussed and this list has seen all the arguments 
(and
>the ad hominems) ad nauseam.
>I would say: let's not procrastinate on this issue any further and take
 it
>to a vote a.s.a.p.
>

I would love to take it to a vote, but to vote on it we need a motion, a
 second, and the reasonable time to discuss it.
The fact is that in less than 24H I will be on a plane to Yokohama.

What is wrong with my proposal to discuss the issue in Yokohama, where 
there's a specific point on the agenda, maybe take a consensus poll at 
the GA, and trim the proposal on the list to put it down in its 
definitive forn to NC?

About the discussion on this list, I confess I did not see much except 
the exchange of arguments (and ad nominem) on the IDNO as the one and 
only representative proposal for the Individual DN Holders Constituency,
 but no effort whatsoever to broaden the consensus, to try to modify the
 original proposal to compromise on different positions, in one word, to
 progress.
Without effort of this type, the only possible vote is pro or against 
Joop. While this can be of some interest to a short number of 
personalities in this list, it is absolutely useless to make the cause 
of the Individual DN Holders progress, because whatever the result of 
the vote in the GA it is obvious to me that the proposal will not pass 
the NC. And this not because the NC are bad guys, but because the 
proposal of IDNO as is (or was) is clearly not a consensus proposal.

The issue is then: how to move towards a consensus proposal? Either we 
find out a way to do it, or we can forget about the whole issue.

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html