<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi Bill,</div><div><br></div><div>There was a thread on the NCSG list with members supporting this statement before the PC ever agreed to endorse it. There is a google doc with the statement posted here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?pli=1">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?pli=1</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>If you have some misgivings, I don’t think it’s too late to bring them up here, or put comments in directly into the document. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t believe the statement has already been submitted.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you find disagreeable with it anyway? I’m curious.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:00 AM, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG">aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG</a>> wrote:
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That IS the NCSG statement right now. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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?<div><br></div><div>So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in this way now were which PC members, exactly?</div><div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div></div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div><div><br></div><div><div>On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>Do you disagree with the stmt?<br></blockquote><br>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.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">It that what you are saying.<br></blockquote><br>I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take the decision away from the PC.<br></blockquote><br>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.</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>