Hi, From a life time of discussion I have come to believe that while the ad absurdum argument is always amusing, is is rarely really pertinent as it almost always involves taking some aspect of the proposal out of context. In this case, you have picked on the word "serious" without including the rest of the context which attempts to indicate how seriousness is determined. As I said, if they have met all of the TBD ("The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status") conditions to be set for what it means to be a constituency-in-formation, such as they have a proposed charter indicating what their interest in ICANN policy on GTLD is, they have an active mailing list, they have members signed up, they have been holding meetings and have been publishing comments on policy work in progress, ... This is what I mean by serious. I have always defended the existence of constituencies and their ability to self define, even if other people felt that they were really duplicates of others or not serious in some other way. In a multi-stakeholder organization, the basic requirement is to allow the self formation and self definition of constituencies - as long as they meet objective pre-defined criteria of participation, openness, transparency, etc ... So, while I doubt the members of the CoFSM will find themselves with a concrete interest in policy making on GTLDs, i do believe that if they meet well defined and published objective criteria of what it means to be serious and were under active consideration for membership in a SG, then no, I would have no problem with them being included as observers. a. ps, yes i read the God Delusion. I thought it was an interesting piece of theology. I found it interesting that he really does not distinguish between the CoFSM and any other church. On 10 Oct 2008, at 09:52, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation.
I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the "Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (ref: http://www.venganza.org/ )
I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious application as an affront to my religious faith. See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the theological arguments.
I trust you will review this application as "serious" : ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared themselves publicly.." )
Philip
PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any judgement of "serious".