Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:2mgfa5-grd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Well, it was not discussed, as far as I remember. The first thing
>>> (after the first break) the Convener did the first morning was to say
>>> that we were not allowed to take pictures in the room since some
>>> delegates were not happy to see pictures of them on the internet.
>
>> 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.
>
>> I've *never* heard of any such ruling in any meeting I either attended
>> or chaired in ETSI, ITU-T, ITU-R, Intelsat, Linux Foundation, or
>> anywhere else. Furthermore, I doubt that it could even be held to be
>> valid.
>
> Yeah well - not a single delegate seemed to have a problem with not taking
> pictures during the debates. If you'll allow me to speculate a bit, I don't
> think it would be allowed to take pictures during the meetings in the
> Danish National Body either (the committee dealing with OOXML) ... and this
> committee has a slight overweight (AFAIR) of OOXML-opponents.
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.
>
>> It sounds more like people are trying to cover their tracks, to me.
>
> Seriously - to what purpose?
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?
> 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.
>
> I honestly think you are trying to see a conspiracy where there really is
> none.
We all *know* that there is corruption going on here, the questions are
more about how deep the corruption goes, how many people are involved,
whether there've been any more "Swedens" with real cash changing hands,
or whether we've had delegates turn up to these meetings who've never
been before.
>
>:o)
>
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
