Re: [ifwp] Re: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?

Dan Steinberg (dstein@travel-net.com)
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:13:42 -0500


Avtually, Kent, it is exactly opposite from an untenable position.
It's how they operate. They talk with people who want to talk to
them.

Private phone calls with anyone who asked was one of Ira Magaziner's
hallmarks. He talked to me (and many other people) as individuals
long before we banded together in various organizations.
As far as I know, things haven't changed since he left. They are the
government. They talk to people. More importantly, they listen.
They even listen when the message is unpleasant.
Nobody, (AFAIK) gets priviledged treatment. I certainly didn't.

So the only thing that's stopping you (and everyone else) from doing
the same thing is????

Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:46:08AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > The for sure right answer is that ORSC should be treated like
> > > everyone else. That probably means that ORSC should not be talking
> > > to DoC.
> >
> > Have you considered asking to speak with the DoC Kent?
>
> No, because it is an obviously untenable position. NTIA doesn't have
> the resources to have a private telecon (with or without
> transcriptions) with anyone who asks.
>
> In other words, I don't ask, because it's obviously unfair, and I
> assumed that NTIA would not do obviously unfair things.
>
> In fact, I don't have any problems with private meetings (or private
> mailing lists) per se -- I believe that private consultation is
> absolutely necessary for progress. But it amuses me to point out
> hypocrisy, and I do it by mirroring the same intolerance.
>
> I thought what I was doing would be obvious, but apparently I was too
> subtle. Just so everyone knows exactly where I am coming from -- I
> don't have any problem with Mikki Barry going off and drafting bylaws
> privately, or with there being a private "bwg-n-friends" list, just
> as I think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a closed
> "participants" list, and just as I think it is perfectly acceptable
> for there to be a private mailing list for people drafting the
> current document. You need a quiet work space, and people need to
> confer. That's fine.
>
> But private telecons with a government regulator -- that starts to
> get a little worrisome.
>

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com