<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hmmm… I would have thought that this was precisely the kind of statement that would precipitate debate rather than chill it.. but since I see that various distinguished members of US civil society have already, unbeknownst to me, made basically the same comments about their own government and the positions, perhaps rather hastily taken by some of their CS confreres, it seems that there may not be much debate arising from this after all; unless of course the USG chooses to react to my comments, which somehow I rather doubt :) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So perhaps we can get on with trying to collaboratively work out appropriate civil society positions in an extremely complex and rapidly evolving global environment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 13, 2013 5:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: [] US House Bill ...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <br><br>.... Many in the rest of the world were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, ....<br><br>~~~<br><br>I am wondering, for calibration sake, as I never approve of people being warned/removed from the list unless it is for genuine hate speech, or overt and continuous bullying.<br><br>Does this statement, which chills debate, calls people of a particular nation and those of another stakeholder group hypocrites for their beliefs and creates a hostile environment, the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start the netiquette warning process?<br><br>Again I am not suggesting any such thing, just trying to understand the criteria for transparencies sake.<br><br>Thanks.<br><br><br><br>~~~<br>avri<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>