Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:n50ga5-voc.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:2mgfa5-grd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>> Which is a strange ruling. Why not say /which/ delegates object ,
>>> say, and determine that their pictures may not be taken, but anyone
>>> else's can?
>>
>> Well - as it turned out we all took pictures in there - but made
>> sure none of the other delegates were in them.
>
> Precisely the intention of this "ban", I think.
ok
> Whyever not? There's never been a camera ban in the UN-based stuff
> which I've done, nor has there been in any of the UK co-ord stuff,
> either.
Well, I cannot answer this. Do note that the cameras are present "on the
floor" where the final debate is taken place in e.g. UN. There is no
camera in the rooms adjecent to the "floor" where the real negociations
take place. In the BRM, the floor was where stuff was negociated.
> In a perhaps misguided attempt to hide from view, in the hope that
> those most directly involved in trying to corrupt the processes and
> function of ISO might not be so visible, perhaps?
I think it is a little far fetched. I was thinking about it today on my
way to the Danish NSB and a reason for not allowing cameras in the room
could be that most of the HoDs were "old standards people" not used to
the publicity. Well - it's just a quess.
>> It is not as if you can hide your
>> participation. A roster of delegates including emails, national body
>> affiliation and names was made on the first day and made available to
>> the SC34-members.
>
> Indeed, but you can /very easily/ influence debate without ever going
> on the record as having done so.
Yes - but a camera in the room does squat to change this ... there will
always be corridor-talk - regardless of a camera in the room.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
