Fwd: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS

[Mawaki Chango]

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>

--- KathrynKL at AOL.COM 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.
> >
>
>