Point well taken, Milton. I suppose there are probably a number of NPOC "members" who have no real idea of what is going on with the NPOC leadership. It's the Principal/Agent Problem gone hog-wild. So in all cases in my previous message where I wrote "NPOC" you may replace that with "NPOC leadership"... Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 8:14 PM +0000 10/22/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Please let's not attack NPOC per se, because there are many good >organizations in NPOC. It's unfortunate that they were trapped in this >dysfunctional GNSO Constituency scheme and used as pawns by certain people. > >I agree with Avri that we don't need constituency-based tribalism. But >such tribalism is the whole purpose of GNSO SG constituencies, as forced >on us by the staff/Board. The people who insisted on the constituency >model know this - it allows a small group, such as the "NPOC leadership" >which really consists of three people, to count for as much as 150 others, >and to pretend to be speaking for a larger group. > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Well, I think we are beyond that being a possibility. >> I would prefer to see us find a way to get beyond the inter-constituency >> tribalism. >> >> Often there is a gulf between the leaders of a group who are forced into >> hard positions to defend their tribe and the general good. I think we >> still have to find the way for the leaders to move toward the general >> good. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Oct 2011, at 11:56, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> > 5. Get rid of NPOC >> > >> > -J