<DIV><STRONG>Point 1</STRONG> - ofcourse it is for discussion - but don't waste too much time on simple structures like this. This structure in it self is actually very democratic and the concern has always been that loose structures or no structure mean that the less influential get easily forgotten in the process of decision making. The "informed" organizations have the input and those who may really have a need to have their input taken seriously are forgotten.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Point 2</STRONG> - We can certainly take away the accredited / observer status requirements of the proposed structure and simply have one vote for one organization. However, the condition that voting is restricted to organizations in NA should remain to make any sense of what a NA caucus is about.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Amali <BR><BR><B><I>Robert Guerra <rguerra@cpsr.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>I have issues with the document which was just sent for distribution.<BR>It's the first i've seen of it, and have issues with it.<BR><BR>* point #1: <BR><BR>would hope it's a draft for discussion , and not a final document. <BR><BR><BR>* Point #2:<BR><BR>suffice it to say that i agree with Diana Bronson's points 100%<BR><BR>being too formalistic is not the way to go. as well, it's very important<BR>to note that several North american NGOs have been denied accreditation<BR>(ie. vetted) by undemocratic and closed states - such as china.<BR><BR><BR>regards<BR><BR>Robert<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>n_america mailing list<BR>n_america@wsis-cs.org<BR>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/n_america</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG>Amali De Silva-Mitchell MSc.</STRONG></P>
<P>Tel: 604-736-9012 & Email: <A href="mailto:amalidesilva@yahoo.com">amalidesilva@yahoo.com</A></P>
<P> </P>
<P><EM><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></EM> </P>
<P> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>