Subject: Re(2): Another IMO

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 02:03:56 +0200

[email-masked] a écrit:
>Barbara;
>
>I think you have echoed the points that we have been emphasizing, which
>is,
>IMHO, our role is to create a primer for the advertiser to use as a first
>or
>repeat reference,
  I feel we would have difficulty in creating a primer for the advertiser
because the advertiser will take what suits and disregard the rest so we
have to be careful to avoid politics while being relevant and, yes, aware
that
> we cannot make policy.
>
>My interpretation of our role is to set a standard,
I wholeheartedly agree with this....though "setting a standard" can be
interpreted as "best practice" or as "protocole" depending on who looks at
the wording.  Therefore we have to be realistic and in tune in our
presentation with a document
>from which the
>policymakers can choose to draw influence, and those at the operational
>level (the network users) can draw a functional framework.
  This means - and I will work on it Monday to offer a common platform
which will give policymakers (and advertisers) food for thought. That is
if the comments suit as a concensus, starting with a reassessment of the
original draft and offer alternative balloons to the winds of time :=)

One question .... as far as time limits is concerned can we push back
release from September 25th if possible to October 4th earliest in order
to incorporate all the submissions to the EEC on 28 September ?

For information, I received a visit this afternoon from Yves Courrier
[email-masked] Senior Programme Officer Information and Informatics
Division, and who is also responible for the world UNESCO Information
Society report due out in December.  There is currently a group called
CYBERSPACE UNIT working on a legal cyberspace framework actively
interested in our approach.  Best regards Jonathan
>
>Does anyone disagree with that assessment?
>
>Ted