It's not pointless to explore the methods used by the INTA for having its
proposals
included in a DNSO draft without having first been presented at a meeting
for
discussion and consensus. It's very instructive to see the tactics used by
the INTA
for gaining its ends.
> One INTA committee member wrote a
> draft which was faxed to me just before I left for Monterrey. No other
> committee member had viewed it before I got to Monterrey. Because INTA is
> a real organization with real members, I could not take a document drafted
> by one person and present it as the INTA position.
Once again, there was no necessity to present anything as a "position". The
meeting was merely
exposing ideas and suggestions for debate. You cannot pretend that after all
this time you didn't
know the INTA's position on such things as membership requirements. These
positions have been yours
and the INTA's for as long as you have been involved in this process. You
didn't mention them at the
meeting because the people there wouldn't have stood for them.
> So there was no INTA
> proposal in my pocket.
There was, as you admitted to me. And, I said, I'll wager it was hardly any
different from what was submitted to the drafting committee. How could it
have been, when the INTA's position on the things we are debating has been
revealed time and again in other forums?
> Ken Stubbs mentioned to me at Monterrey that he was
> told by an INTA rep that there would be a draft and I confirmed as much. I
> made it clear to anyone I spoke to at Monterrey, "easily impressed" or
> otherwise, that the INTA mid-year meeting was two days after Monterrey and
> that time the committee would take up the issue. I said this on the floor
> of the meeting in an exchange with Mr. Semich - look it up in the minutes.
This is all so much bla-blah-blah. No one asked the INTA for a finished
draft of bylaws or anything else, nor expected it. As a matter of plain
fact, the INTA proposal came as a complete surprise and shock to everyone
who hadn't been informed that it was impending, just because it is so out of
place in this process for any group to present a "finished draft" to the
DNSO, something that the democratically-minded participants all refrained
from doing, although their organizations could just as well have done the
same thing as the INTA. They didn't, because it didn't fit with the process,
which, as I've said, and as you knew full well, was to present ideas and
suggestions for specific clauses for debate.
But the point here is that nothing, or nothing legitimate, prevented you
from bringing up the INTA's avowed and well-known positions on crucial
things like membership and the corporate structure at Monterrey. What
prevented you from doing this was the pulse of the meeting, which you had
taken, that it was indeed a democratic process being undertaken by a large
group of fair-minded people, who would not countenance the agressive
unfairness of the INTA's positions.
> p.s. I am not "INTA's representative to the DNSO." There is no such animal.
Then you had no business presenting yourself as such in Monterrey. You can't
have your cake and eat it too.
You can't be the INTA's representative when it suits you, and be just nice
little Marty Schwimmer when that's more convenient.
> p.p.s. This is my last word on this subject.
That may very well be, since you have no credible arguments. But this
subject is far from closed.