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
> >
>