I agree with Bill's comments below, sorry i won't be able to join in
person, but will do so remotely!

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:13 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Rafik
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Rafik <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> To summarise the timeline:
>
>
> I'm aware of all this
>
> You suggested in Sunday that NCSG send a statement about the announcement .
> I welcomed the proposal and I asked you if you can volunteer.
>
>
> At the same time I was doing 95 other things before rushing out of town, and
> there was and is no reason to rush this before there's been a proper
> collective discussion
>
> Milton drafted a statement and shared it with me, and so I sent it to the
> NCSG list and the PC was cced. I thought that we can reach decision by the
> middle of the week.
> Several NCSG members supported the statement , same within the PC.
>
>
> And many said nothing; again, I ask which PC members have endorsed, names
> please.
>
> You made comment about the strategy and need to have a short version , I
> replied to you and others , that amendments are welcome but there should be
> clear wording.
> People continued to send their support, and discussion continued in PC. The
> process continued to get people feedback within the NCSG and PC lists, I am
> not sure why you a stating that there is no real discussion with members.
>
>
> I think more engaged discussion is required that "I support" and "looks
> good".  Consideration of argument, counter-arguments, etc.
>
> I didn't send the statement to get feedback as much as possible it how much
> we can delay?
>
>
> There will hopefully be a joint SO AC statement by Thursday and there's no
> reason our parallel statement couldn't go out then, the world isn't waiting
> with baited breath to hear from us.
>
>
> My understanding is that you are not supporting  to send now with the
> current version but you didn't suggest specific wording , while most members
> endorsed the statement.
>
>
> Because I'm busy fik, running a conference today, retreat tomorrow, etc.
> NCSG PC is Sunday and would provide an appropriate time for actual
> interaction and probing, perhaps even taking into account strategic
> considerations concerning what is going on the larger community etc.
>
> For the strategy , that is another matter and I  am not sure that you were
> clear about the reasons.
>  You are suggesting to delay the discussion to Singapore which may make the
> statement ineffective and late?
>
>
> Not remotely
>
>
> For the cross community statement to be signed by "leaders",
>
>
> That is not the idea.  Every SO AC SG Con is going back to its people and
> having internal discussions.  We should start to do the same.
>
>  I shared the first version in NCSG and PC list but there was no indication
> of strong support for me to sign it as it is. Moreover several groups are
> working in amendments and not all of them are shared yet. Maybe it will be
> take over by the community to rewrite it and take ownership.
>
>
> Let's take a breath and do this right with some idea of what's going on
> around us, please.  We can talk Sunday.
>
> Bill
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> Le 20 Mar 2014 à 19:00, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That IS the
> NCSG statement right now.
>
>
> I'm having trouble with the process being followed.  Yesterday I expressed
> misgivings about the strategic advisability of saying all this now in the
> way it does and lack of real discussion with members.  I said I'll roll with
> the majority, especially since I have no vote, but was hoping someone would
> at least address the points I was raising and explain the rationale.  But
> now we've reached closure already?
>
> So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in this
> way now were which PC members, exactly?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Do you disagree with the stmt?
>
>
> As I said on the list I'd have thought it more strategic to hold off on
> pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as there is
> still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and this ups the ante
> ex ante. And I'd have lost some of the tone that I know will be poorly
> received in some quarters, don't see the value. But whatever, if everyone
> else thinks it's good to do it this way, I don't have the bandwidth to
> debate it, I'm flying today.  Anyway I'm just a constituency chair and have
> no vote on the PC.
>
> It that what you are saying.
>
>
> I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.
>
>
> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take the
> decision away from the PC.
>
>
> This of course is not what I'm saying.  I said it'd be nice to include the
> wider membership in the discussion before deciding.
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel