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 * ********************************************