Re: [ga] Successor agency. (was: Substance over rhetoric )
On 03:14 21/03/02, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 18:37 20/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Do you have any illusion that brute financial and lobbying power is not
>going to define the structures of a successor agency?
No. This is why we have to structure a consensus where that is structurally
*prevented*. IMO it is possible, but it calls on constitutionalism and what
I see on the lists with people thinking first about elections, committee,
control, etc... seems so much out dated and irrealistic that I wander if
this is only amateurism or if it is part of the human international nature.
But who knows?
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html