[Chapter-delegates] OneWebDay 2009 - tomorrow 22 September

[James Butler]

Let's see how that passage fares with a different subject, just to make 
sure it's a valid complaint:

"Right now, governments, corporate entities and technical elites decide 
the fate of the most powerful, inclusive PLUMBING SYSTEM ever created. 
They're making decisions about who will have access, at what speeds, and 
at what price. They're deciding how to invest in training and education 
in 21st century PLUMBING."

Why, yes they are. In fact, this passage is pretty standard stuff with 
regard to any infrastructure, when taken on its own. Roadways, 
television, water distribution, telephones, real estate and more ... all 
being managed end-to-end by "governments, corporate entities and 
technical elites", albeit without the conspiratorial theme.

This is not the basis for an effective argument. If that passage 
represents any kind of key principle, perhaps the "pledge" should be 
reconsidered in its entirety by its publishers?

James Butler


Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> wrote:
>
>> Can someone among the Chapter Delegates kindly explain to me why we 
>> support OneWebDay while it circulates a "pledge against the digital 
>> divide" that contains wording which is directly hostile to ISOC, the 
>> IETF, and other organizations ISOC supports?
>>
>> I quote: "Right now, governments, corporate entities and technical 
>> elites decide the fate of the most powerful, inclusive communications 
>> platform ever created. They're making decisions about who will have 
>> access, at what speeds, and at what price. They're deciding how to 
>> invest in training and education in 21st century communications."
>
> It looks like they got a bit carried away with their language, doesn't 
> it?
> Several such groups have recently put out petitions about Network 
> Neutrality & other contentious and complex issues. In most cases, the 
> wording of their text left much to be desired due to unfortunate 
> amalgamation of targets, probably caused by hasty wording and not 
> enough feedback prior to putting the petition out.
>
> We know the jist of what they mean. I believe that we generally 
> support their point of view. But their inaccurate statements does 
> weaken their stance. Yes, the statement, as displayed on the OWD site 
> is ill-written.
>
> I guess everybody can't be as perfect in their statements as ISOC. :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>