They engaged in a way not conducive to get my support, that's what they did. 



They should be spearheading the search for novel ideas of how to do this *without* overreach. But they overreach instead of working to craft a compromise solution. And the work to craft the compromise solution is left to ... well, Dan I guess ... or the board ... or whatever accidentaly happens, politically.







 

Please excuse my mobile brevity.



-----Original Message-----

From: Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]>

Sender: [log in to unmask]

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 00:11:06 

To: Nicolas Adam<[log in to unmask]>

Cc: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby



On 2 July 2014 23:54, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:





> why isn't the RC itself spearheading this?





Uh, it did, when the time for it to speak was appropriate.



At the working group level where this issue was dealt with (and in which I

was also involved), the ICRC was a very active participant (though less

aggressive than the IOC). It joined the process when it was appropriate,

then (also unlike the IOC) stopped lobbying and let the community engage,

having said all it thought needed to be said.



What were you expecting? Where is the part of the process they failed to

engage? From what i could tell, they followed the process that they thought

was appropriate.



- Evan