Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> >That's the same logic used by everyone who participates in closed
> processes.
> >Did you ask whether the meeting was open to everyone who is interested? Did
> >you refuse to participate in a closed meeting? Is it alright when ti's the
> >ORSC that does it, but a terrible crime when it's someone else?
>
> It does, indeed, appear to be closed. No, to my knowledge, ORSC has not
> refused to attend - indeed, I see ORSC as "crashing the party" as it
> were. I, personally, would rather have someone there who will report
> back what was said and what was done, rather than have to guess.
ORSC was "invited". The users and their representatives haven't been, nor
have any people from CABASE or ALCI, or anywhere else in the developing
countries, because the INTA and their friends don't want opposition. It's
clear as day, isn't it? And the ORSC is supporting this? Just like AIM and
CIX with the IANA last summer. You must all be mad to let this happen.
Sure you'd rather have someone there who represents your interests. Well,
what about everyone else who hasn't been invited to represent their
interests? I don't see how you can all carry on about being "open" and
"accountable", and then the first chance you are invited to sit down with
the money boys you betray everything you've said.
> Look, if some people want to have a closed meeting, I can't stop
> them.
If you found out about the meeting, and hadn't been invited, you'd be
screaming bloody murder right now.
> But I can point it out (as you're doing, too), and I can help
> someone attend whom I trust will report back.
You can't stop them? Then why don't you all shut up when the dnso.org or
someone else does something that's not immediately reported to the whole
world? Did you report to the world that you're attending a closed meeting,
to negotiate independently with the INTA and the ICC, just like AIM and CIX
did with the IANA back when the IFWP was broken up? Don't you see what
you're doing here? How many times are you going to let these people pull the
same tricks on us?
What you're going to Washington to do is negotiate an application for the
DNSO with the trademark people, without any of the opposition there. Because
it's expedient for you, just like what CORE does, just like the INTA itself.
So why do you pretend to be moral and fair, when you don't really give a
damn about openness?
> What more do you want? Really - what more can be done? I'm open
> to suggestion!
That's it. Self-interest, and throwing up your hands when it's other people
who are excluded. Well, you won't get any more support when it's you who are
the excluded ones. You're betraying all your own principles. It's a
disgrace. And you're fools to let them get away with this.
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
