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
> > >
> >