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

[Kilnam Chon <chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr>]

my reply to Bret, Elisabeth, and Antony on GA and its members are as follows
as i stated earlier to ga@dnso.org;

1. let's create ga-member@dnso.org(or use announce@dnso.org if we can agree).

	initial members consist of announce@dnso.org and/or ga@dnso.org.

2. let's encourage all members of the seven constituencies to join
   ga-members, and hope we will have several hundred members from the
   current 130+ for ga@dnso.org.

the abvoe scheme would give reasonable "outreach" for GA.

chon

PS: ga-member@dnso.org(or announce@dnso.org) should be moderated so that
    people receive announcement from the secretariat.  if the member wants
    to have discussion, join ga@dnso.org, which may be renamed as
    ga-discuss@dnso.org as appropriate.
*******************************************************************************

On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> 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