On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:44:14AM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
> In light of the past few days of comments, let's just shine a mirror on
> your message, with a few words replaced (see caps)
My comment was itself intended as a mirror of many comments. I
guess I was a bit too subtle.
That being said, there is a vast difference between the two cases --
the NTIA is in fact a government agency, and operates under some
rather strict rules; the proposed telecon was between that agency and
precisely one interest group. That is, privileged access by
precisely one stakeholder with the single most important decision
making power involved.
On the other hand, the Jan 21 meeting is a prepratory meeting for an
immediately following PUBLIC meeting, and includes a *great many*
stakeholders from many really different constituencies.
Further, it has been made clear several times over that the jan 21
meeting (and jan 22 meeting, for that matter) is not a dnso.org
meeting. It was initiated by an entirely different group, and the
dnso.org is participating and helping out as part of its efforts to
include more stakeholders.
Further yet (as also has been pointed out many times) the dnso.org
folks participating in the meeting have been working very hard to
open it up, with substantial success. [The original proposal, as I
understand it, was for an entirely closed meeting, and dnso.org
refused to participate under those terms].
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
