At 12:51 PM 9/27/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I may have missed something, but it seems to me that Green Paper and White
>Paper are two distinct things.
>The former was a draft, and is now buried in oblivion, while the second is
>the current (as today, 1999-09-27) statement of policy of the USG.
>As such, I don't understand in the following thread why the Green Paper is
>used to prove a point where the White Paper is quoted.
Hi Roberto,
The White Paper is *not* quoted,
only referenced. If you can find
where the White Paper decides the
business model question, then by
all means, please post it.
Jay.
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>
><sorry for having lost track of who said what in the indenting>
>
><Mike Roberts, I assume>:
> > > > >
> > > > >If Jay thinks that the language of the white paper
> > > > >and the language of the antitrust laws is smoke and
> > > > >mirrors, he's certainly entitled to that view, but
> > > > >I doubt it is widely shared.
> > > > >
>
><Jay Fenello replies>
> > > >
> > > >More smoke and mirrors!
> > > >
> > > >Here's the relevant section from the U.S. Government's
> > > >Green Paper, the pre-cursor to the White Paper:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm
> > > >
>
>Smoke and mirrors are, IMHO, the confusion between these two documents.
>As I said, the current USG policy is in the White Paper. To quote the Green
>Paper is useless and misleading.
>
>
>And more:
>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I wonder why Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's
> > > > > > >>technology czar, proposed a solution that was
> > > > > > >>"against the law" (aka The Green Paper)!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Let's face it Mike, no amount of "spin" will
> > > > > > >>change the facts -- you have a pre-ordained
> > > > > > >>agenda, you have no interest in living up to
> > > > > > >>the lofty goals of the White Paper, and your
> > > > > > >>organization is a sham.
> > > > > > >>
>
>Proposed does not mean accepted.
>
>To change the facts is rather to pretend that the Green Paper is the gospel.
>Can we go forward instead of dreaming what could have happened if the Green
>Paper did not have turned into White (BTW, wasn't that the title of a Cat
>Stevens tune?)?
>
>Regards
>Roberto
