<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">regarding Alain Berranger's statement:<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>regarding Bill Drake' statement:</div><div><br></div><div><i>...NPOC (which also didn't have a rip roaring debate over the selection of its people, .e.g. <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00012.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00012.html</a>)...<br>
</i><div><br></div><div>Please note - as a new constituency perhaps not a surprise - that we have clearly indicated that the current NPOC leadership is <b><u>interim</u></b> and that we have an upcoming election in process... you have to start somewhere and the current NPOC interim leadership is just that, a start… </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I was clearly referring to the matter of constituency selections of reps to the NCSG PC and merely noting that in neither case was this a big deal that provoked debate. But on the unrelated note, it is good to hear of the election in process, and I look forward to hearing more.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>given the recent state of affairs between the two constituencies and the continued inappropriate tone and personal gang bashing used again by NCUC/NCSG leadership in this current debate,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Unclear what this refers to. But in your absence we had a perfectly congenial SG call last night in which there was agreement to launch an effort to identify common ground on LEA/privacy &FOE issues, and an NCUC offer of support for a NPOC co-sponsored motion in Council. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div> our new members may not be that interested in running for office and elect to stay away from this sub-culture of aggressive personalized tone!</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>A couple people have had a heated disagreement in recent days. Quelle horreur! I suppose this must explain why there have only been 60 messages on the NPOC list over the past two years, most of them from you.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><br></div><div>That said and having to witness NCUC dirty laundry washed in public (why don't you please redevelop your own NCUC listserve and spare NPOC membership such undignified tone of debate)... I find Avri's request quite reasonable…</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>First you complain about people having a disagreement about an NCUC matter on the list, then you take sides in the disagreement. Neat trick!</div><div><br></div><div>The thinking in NCUC was that we should not split the list because it would reinforce the silo mentality and there might be little traffic on a SG list. But given that only one NPOC person participates on the latter anyway, I at least would be willing to reconsider this stance along the lines you suggest.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>