Having principles should in no way prevent from being strategical. 
Thought I'd voice this since i have been sounding off a lot on principles.

I don't believe in karma, but i hate inesthetical things with a passion. 
Fortunately, I find good strategy to be of the highest aesthetical 
order. While I think principles are important, weaving them 
unstrategically is aesthetically reprehensible to me.

So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I 
sometimes expect the people that are able to do politics and compromise 
to use my principled opposition as best they see. This is why i voted 
for them. I try to give munition as well as myopinion but I am happy to 
defer to our elected representatives who are in positions to see more 
globally (and strategically) than I can with my limited experience .... .

Nicolas

#########

Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with thx 
in advance):

why wouldn't an amendment pass? and what was the outreach vote that had 
the GNSO divided?

Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics 
between both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper recounting 
recent negotiations or some such?


On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> >  I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to support its principles in any negotiation or risk the same approbation you are concerned about now.  To hope that it will be ok, because ALAC will object may not be the most advisable course.  Then again, US politics has taught me that there does not need to be a necessary connection between how one votes, what one says and what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only karma and doing what you think is right that matters.
> US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm not sure I'd like to embrace that one.  I do suspect though that any SO/AC, not just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will only accept rules of engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO sez it wants x that's not the end of the matter.
>
> We could defer, amend, both.  Any thoughts on my suggestion in that regard?