I'll chime in as an infrequent commenter to second Harold's comments. He
is exactly right. ALA is a member because we generally support the
concerns and objectives of NCUC, but our detailed involvement with these
issues waxes and wanes. And, speaking for me as an infrequent
participant, the confusing arcanity of ICANN policy, process, and
politics makes it hard to dive in at the last minute when we suddenly do
see an interest. I suspect that we will become more involved again in
the future, particularly on the broader governance questions. But, in
the meantime, our silence has to be taken to reflect general consent
with what is going on. Otherwise, the NCUC leadership would be
paralyzed.

Rick Weingarten

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harold Feld
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Statement on new gTLDs

I must express my firm agreement with Mawki here.

While I do my best to follow the constituency's work, my own work is now
only tangentially related to domain name issues.  We continue to
maintain membership because we generally support the work of the
constituency and recognize the importance of a vibrant NCUC to the ICANN
process.

As a consequence, I rarely comment on matters unless I have something to
say.  I also miss a number of important things.  My silence has to be
taken for general support of any position the constituency adopts
through its governing process, or we cannot hope to get work done in any
meaningful way.  Worse, it creates an artificial impression of division
and disagreement, magnified by the apparent unanimity of the other
constituencies.

I would urge that any constituency statement or policy adopted by the
recognized processes be recognized as the position of the constituency
without any attempts to caveat this (unless there is a substantial
plurality or division).  Individual organizations can always voice their
individual opinions, and should do so.  But any participant in the NCUC
process should accept the outcome of that process, even if the
organization in question would have preferred a different outcome.

Harold Feld

At 12:47 AM 2/1/2006, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>Dear Carlos,
>
>I regret this debate (including your previous posting), and I suspect 
>things would have been better if the reactions to this call came 
>earlier enough to leave room for fine tuning last minute negotiations 
>and for a more consensual conclusion. Our responsibility to all of us 
>is involved here one way or the other, but while I'll still carry out 
>mine as GNSO Councillor, I feel I'd better not volunteer the next time 
>for this type of situation within NCUC and leave the responsibility to 
>mobilize the constituency where it belongs.
>
>I am aware that people don't necessarily agree when they don't express 
>themeselves while they are invited to, but I tend to think that they 
>take the responsibility to be counted as endorsing what is being said 
>or done on their behalf - and they accept such responsibility.
>
>I just went through the GNSO constituency questionaire, and realized 
>that this is not the first time I'm looking at them; my silence so far 
>means: I can't think of anything else to add to it. If someone does, 
>that's great; let us see the final/latest result. Otherwise, I accept 
>the responsibility to be associated to the questionnaire as it is.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Mawaki
>
>--- Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Near consensus? Several members did not express their positions in 
> > this list. In any case, you can say it represents the position of a 
> > majority of the ones who did participate.
> >
> > NCUC is not very participative these days -- I still need help on 
> > the GNSO constituency questionnaire, and no one replied so far 
> > (since Dec.19, 2005).
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > Mawaki Chango wrote:
> >
> > >Dear Olof,
> > >
> > >Kindly find attached the above metioned statement that I wish to 
> > >submit to the GNSO on behalf of the NCUC.
> > >
> > >Please note that it is _nearly_ a consensus position, failing one 
> > >voice. In any case, this is the aproved result by an overwhelming 
> > >majority from our discussions on the topic.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >Mawaki
> > >
> >