<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Oct 12, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch 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; ">Every stakeholder group (except maybe the IPC) has a mix of big and small players and regional diversity, the ISPC should not be immune from the benefit of such broadening.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>We can debate how much mix there is—although it's not so easy given the lack of information about members on some groups' websites (which I believe really needs fixing—transparency across SGs and constituencies is far from uniform). My concern would be a) telecenters could get marginalized and not really flower in ISPC and b) diversity is needed more at the CSG level than in any one constituency. Worth debating at some point maybe…</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>