NGOs whose officials sent back the questionnaire indicated, in total, 587 NGOs, with 366 non-respondents included. The latter were indicated by actual participants of the survey as friends or partners (see below), but did not fill the questionnaire themselves. To come by the network suitable for the analysis we were forced to redefine boundaries, leaving only respondents, preserving, however, to some extend information about non-respondents. We justify that move conceptually distinguishing between respondents and non-respondents and exploiting a framework in which being in one of these states approximate attitude towards “being surveyed”. The logic behind connected with the observation that several big and influential organizations were not just ignoring the survey, but started their own slightly afterwards. We interpreted this as the struggle over the right to create and to control the discourse. We supposed that influential organizations may find that being objectified through survey and analysis undermines their discourse-setter status. So, difference between respondents and non-respondents is considered as socially and politically meaningful, and, in particular, reflecting idiosyncrasies of NGO’s self-presentation.