Re: [gtld-council] Apology

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Even before you explained further your thought and apologized, I
had assumed you may have been well meaning. The thing is we
ourselves don't necessary realize how far we come across
sometimes [Believe me, I know what I'm talking about ;-)] and
how obvious our assumptions may seem to others.

If this can help better understand, the direct context has its
importance: you started offering your opinion of the NCUC
statement (as being precisely an opinion statement rather than
impact statement,) then put forward that question as to how many
organizations were involved. Coming in this order, the latter
after the former, it makes a certain meaning more probable than
others. NCUC statement was the last to date, after many others.
I don't think none of them (not even the RyC's, as you
acknowledge it) included that information and nobody (not even
you) asked. So it was just too easy to understand your
question(s) as a challenge to another constituency's processes.

My purpose is not to further feed this discussion; I understand
this was not the intent, and your apology is well taken. More
broadly, it'd be good we consider making proposals for changes
in our processes not when facing specific cases, whether for
immediate effect or not [especially based on your personal
understanding of those processes, which other council members
may not share, so this sill need substantial discussion], but
rather ex-situ (if that makes sense in Latin,) meaning not in
reaction to any specific case otherwise we will always give the
impression that we are sngling out that case and the entities
involved (while everything seemed fine so far, based on the
absence of similar reaction before then.)

Regards,

Mawaki

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I apologize for what apparently came across as an "accusatory"
> question
> asked of Robing regarding the NCUC's impact statement
> regarding new
> gTLDs.  I did not intend it that way as I tried to explain in
> earlier
> email responses to Avri and Mawaki.
>  
> I do think though that it would be helpful if we as a Council
> at some
> point would discuss whether representativeness of constituency
> statements should be a data point that is included with regard
> to final
> recommendations we make to the Board.  From the very beginning
> of the
> DNSO, I have always personally believed that was important. 
> In the RyC
> we have imbedded that concept in our Articles of Operation and
> have
> regularly implemented it in our deliberations.
>  
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
>