NCUC Statement on new gTLDs

[Frannie Wellings]

I'd like to just agree with Harold and Rick.  This is generally a quiet
group for many of the reasons that they've expressed.  I think Harold's
right that any constituency statement should be recognized as the
position of the entire constituency.  If any of us specifically oppose
something moving forward then we should speak up, otherwise those who
are doing the hard work and making an attempt to include us all (by
posting drafts along the way and asking for comments) should conclude
that they have our support if we don't respond.  It's not ideal, but it
does seem necessary.

Mawaki, your hard work is very much appreciated.  Thank you!

And Carlos, yours is as well. I think we all understand the frustration
with a quiet NCUC list.  Milton certainly dealt with it as well.  I'll
try to pipe up a bit more and maybe others will as well.

I wonder if we might need a bit more background now and then about
what's happening in the GNSO... I'm sorry to add a task for members who
are already volunteering time, but if there could be regular updates on
council or task force activity then it might be easier to stay
up-to-date and get involved, give input, etc.

Best,

Frannie


*  *  *  *
Frannie Wellings
Program Manager
Free Press
(202) 265-1490 x 21
http://www.freepress.net

Media/ is/ the issue.

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 <ca at RITS.ORG.BR> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20060201/ee6f9ae4/attachment.html>