Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 13:18 31/01/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> >Also, I must say that I am equally interested on the NO Constituency
> >model and the MANY CONSTITUENCY model, but not interested in anything
> >in between. I am not welded to either proposal, but if we are going
> >to have any constituencies, then I claim we need many.
> >
> Stef,
>
> I respect you for this view. IMHO, rigidity and a complexity to adapt
> flexibly to dynamic changes and overlaps within the membership is a valid
> objection to the multiple constituency model.
> I will give my full support to a DNSO with a singly constituency that is
> broad enough to hold all stakeholders: all DN registrants.
Agreed, there is not a good argument that we have seen yet for multiple
constituencies represented as such in draft bylaw proposals that can
justify the ends of such representation as defined entities/constituencies.
A FLAT model alone with a large membership is the only method
to avoid capture. Ti has the added advantage of assisting in insuring
better funding as well....
>
>
> Capture by a special interest group is to be prevented by an all-out
> membership drive to ensure a large membership base.
> This means a low-fee entrance requirement.
Agreed.
>
>
> Joop Teernstra
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.imachination.com
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
