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.
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
