<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Izumi<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On May 17, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is proceeding</span></blockquote><br></div><div>How do you know it's going to be constructive? Why would we prejudge how members might characterize the quality of the discussion? </div><div><br></div><div>I don't really see the need for the IGC to try to slap together a statement on enhanced cooperation, a topic that's sharply divided members for seven years. But if you feel compelled to say something, it would be consistent with the broad consensus over the years to endorse</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">- multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all<br>stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>