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. >> >> >> >>