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 > > >