Good points, Mawaki. Maybe our declaration should express what you say 
-- I have never seen a democratic decision-making environment in which 
the authoritative body asks voters to explain why they voted for any 
propostion.

After all, the records of our list are public:

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A0=ncuc-discuss&T=0

and this is what the registrars constituency replied, BTW.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Personally, I'm attempted by civil disobedience except my
> statement to the council in replying to Bruce's motion (see
> first section of my reply*). I feel like people are being
> requested to explain why they voted the way they did,
> notwithstanding the careful wording of the motion, and this
> because some don't like the result of the vote. This is not the
> same as asking the TF and those who drafted the definitions to
> explain what these mean, etc.
> 
> Other than that, I'm OK if the constituency decides to go for a
> unique and common declaration.
> 
> My two cents,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> (*)Quote below, with slight corrections in _square_ brackets,
> just for more clarity:
> 
> This might seem something simple, innocuous to do, however I
> feel there is something dangerous here. The assumption here,
> whether we like it or not, is that we are implying there is
> something wrong that needs to be fixed, on the side of those who
> voted for the current formulation [defining] the purpose of
> WHOIS (the former formulation 1). What if some [of those who]
> voted against [it did so only] because they misunterstood it?
> Why do we seem to assume that [there is a] mistake, [and that
> the mistake] is necessarily on the other side (that of the voted
> definition)?
> 
> I guess Bruce, you didn't mean to imply that, but the fact is
> that obviously is the assumption of those who are counter
> attacking the vote of the Council, and by doing everything
> necessary (and even more) to please them, we end up by adhering
> to that assumption [before we realize] it. Let's be careful and
> not set the following as a precedent: the Council['s] vote means
> nothing, because the Council is not those who voted for this or
> that definition - it is all of us. 
> 
> </quote>
> 
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
>> Carlos -- that's a good idea.  I might recommend that the
>> statement by our 3 
>> Council reps be drafted with me and Milton (as our Task Force 
>> representatives).  That way, a careful statement of our
>> understanding at both the TF and 
>> Council levels is reflected.  
>>
>> Regards, Kathy
>>
>>>
>>> This seems endless, but we should prepare carefully the
>> statement of why 
>>> we voted in favor of the current formulation. It would be a
>> single 
>>> statement for our three council reps, right?
>>>
>>> I would insist with Bruce that each statement be immediately
>> circulated 
>>> to all GNSO council members as soon as it is received --
>> which justifies 
>>> us doing ours as soon as possible.
>>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br

********************************************
* Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado  *
* a projetos de inclusão digital com       *
* software livre e de código aberto,       *
* mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************