<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <<a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy.</span><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I agree up until now, but...<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">This <b>clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, </b>as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and have <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.226562); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.226562);"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will not depart too radically from our general views.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her views and also invite others to comment.</div><div><br></div><div>I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) </div></div></body></html>