Dear Francine, Giuseppe & Gina

Again I applaud your perception of what Group 2 is about, and your caution not to drill too deeply into the discrete data looking for additional insights.  I sense questionnaire respondents have tried to convey the 'essence of CI' and other qualitative aspects; this is likely to generate angst amongst quantitative analysts seeking the cold, hard numbers to underpin the changes being considered.

>From an Asian perspective, I am still circumspect that the questionnaires re-orient CI's work more towards a regional effort.  It is true that, in recent times, CI efforts have yielded better results at a regional level (eg Mahgreb, Porto Alegre, Ivry) than against global expectations.  You are correct to discuss trajectories because, sometimes when we follow the 'path of least resistance', the victories are easier for the winning, but hollow against the strategic need.

As we re-iterate endorsement of FSM's consensual style, it seems hollow to declare  21/41 as a majority. Qs 4, 5, 6 ought not be deemed as 'too difficult' or invite too much introspection on those who framed the questions.  With 21 responses 'For' and 20 responses 'Against', it heralds a lively discussion and debate whenever Group 2 should reconvene.  In those questions, we might just have uncovered something which defines the essence of 'who we are' or 'where do we want to go?' so I feel Group 2's work continues.

Thank you for including my questionnaire responses
Chris