[wg-d] GA Definition Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
>Furthermore I am still in limbo concerning GA definition.
>I was completely disturbed by the volume of ga@dnso.org
>contributions, but even Antony summary to the WGD, much more quiet,
>is only questionning:
 ....

>And I am very concerned by some people not willing to be in any
>constituency but remaining in the GA, and requesting votes for GA.

I think this comes from the fact that not every individual fits into a 
particular constituency at the present time. Perhaps the recognition of 
the NCDNHC and the IDNO (or the opening of the other constituencies to 
individuals) will give everyone a place to vote for NC members. But, that 
said, assuming that we can address the problems summarized by Antony 
about identity and voting, I personally see no problem with persons 
joining only the GA. 

>Could we address here this role of GA being "political dissedents" ?
>I think it was not foreseen in initial DNSO drafts (at least not
>in Paris one), and it is clearly human nature aspect.

My perception is that what you're identifying as political dissent in the 
GA is a result of the fact that the NCDNHC and the IDNO are not yet 
recognized, the persons who fall into those categories are understandably 
upset about their lack of recognition, and the only available forum for 
their participation, at present, is the GA. I assume that these two 
constituencies will be recognized in Santiago, so perhaps the GA will 
take on a different character then. 

    -- Bret