James, the "failed" refers to Chris' suggestion that the ccNSO can set policy successfully. And I stand by this. el On 2015-01-29 17:54 , James M. Bladel wrote:
Hi Eberhard:
To your point here: "that may be so, though I disagree, again because it does not work for the non-members of the ccNSO, it does not address the bilateral relationship, and, more importantly it has failed. “
I don’t think “failed” is the right term, versus “doesn’t go far enough” or “is incomplete.” If a proposal were to be an improvement for all SO/ACs, -except- the ccNSO, and (also importantly) it does not create harm or exacerbate existing problems, then I think we should not reject it, but consider it part of the solution package and keep working.
Thanks—
J. [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/