On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 02:32:10PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
[...]
>
> Every other constituency was recognized,
> warts and all, with the "understanding ;-)"
> that they would grow into a more robust
> and legitimate organization over time.
>
> Why the double standard for the IDNO?
There is no double standard.
The existing constituencies are described in the bylaws, the IDNO is
not. Two different processes are involved -- on the one hand,
completion of already defined and accepted constituencies; on the
other hand, recognization of a constituency in the first place.
The existing defined constituencies were the result of a long arduous
public process. Part of that process included SEVERAL proposals for
an individual constituency, and those proposals did not gain
acceptance. I made some of those proposals, so I am intimately
familiar with the issues and the objections that were made. Those
issues and objections have not gone away, and recognization of an
individual's constituency in any form is highly problematic, at best.
Kent
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
