On 28-Jan-15 11:01, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?

Yes, i read it quickly a while back.

I even just reread to try and figure out why you keep asking me this.

The only thing I can find is an implicit request that instead of just reporting on the SCI to the council, the liaison should also report to the SCI on the council. No problem. Speaking as the liaison I am happy to have that as part of the regular SCI agenda. Understanding the task of the liaison role is evolving and this seems totally reasonable to me as a function of the role.

Was that what you were looking for?

Otherwise from reading the letter, and speaking now as a primary member who intends to remain one until such time as Stefania tells me she is ready to take on the primary role and we switch roles, I think that the process used to agree on the letter was rushed and did not take into account any discussion time. I am a bit surprised, now having reread the transcript with a searching intent, that the items 3 and 4 showed up on your revised version in the manner they did. I also saw no call for consensus on the letter, just a lack of dissent in the last seconds of the call. there was no call for consensus on the list either that I saw. As I said previously, I am concerned with SCI processes, and lack of strictness in its practices. As a member, the top down approach to letter writing does not seem the best example for this group to follow. Also I feel that in moving ahead with the letter, the concerns of those on the call may not have been fully factored in, but they would have to speak to that - though perhaps some have already given their indication in one form or another.

I also noticed something I think I have noticed before and that is how few people spoke up during the meeting.

Thanks

avri