Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Maybe there should be a meeting *about* constituencies, as opposed to
> necessarily *of* constituencies.
Why? It seems to us that the need for pre-defined constituencies is
fairly much opposed. The polls that we and Joop ran showed this
to be the case f
At 14:57 12/02/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director a écrit:
>>
>> Chon and all,
>>
>> While not OPPOSED, personally, to a meeting of constituencies, keep in mind
>> that at this point, there are TWO proposals for the DNSO, and only ONE
>> defines which cons
