<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">George,<div><br></div><div>I am putting a final hand to my next hufpost and will provide the link once it is online. It will also include a link to the full transcript - was a bit of work for a Continental European like me to get through Alejandro's speedy Mexican English. No offense, just a bit of a hard time to be as precise as possible.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>JC</div><div><br><div><div>Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:33, George Sadowsky a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also. <div><br></div><div>I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a>.<div><br></div><div>I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well.</div><div><div><br></div><div>I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list.</div><div><br></div><div>So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment?</div><div><br></div><div>George</div><div><br></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><div><div><div>On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world.<div><br></div><div>Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the <i>greatest</i> moment of the meeting. Unavoidable.</div><div><br></div><div>But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program".</div><div><br></div><div>JC</div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions.<br><br>I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology?<br><br>George<br><br><br>On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Georges,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">JC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit :<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">All,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. <br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. <br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">George<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is a valued part of CS.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">extends far beyond the confines of this caucus.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below...<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the global technical community, for example he has served three<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of Trustees)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a lurker) and therefore part of CS.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">indicative in one way or the other!)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">are at<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What exactly is shocking?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Jean-Christophe has quoted<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">c) these things being well received in the context where they were said<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">they're working<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">influence.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">kind of tactics.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">an effective civil society voice<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion, are tactical in nature though.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again).<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thanks for the insult.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Greetings,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Norbert<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>