FW: Fact checking of GSO Review report sections by constituencies

[Milton Mueller]

I've just reviewed the report and in fact what I saw contains all the
data and text. So presumably they only want me to question or discuss
ncuc-related stuff, which I did. But really I could (and did) address
anything. Based on what I read, they have some useful data and interpret
it in a relatively balanced way, although there are instances where one
can  infer that pressure has been placed on them to interpret certain
things in certain ways, especially in cases related to the BC. You'll
see what I mean when the report comes out.

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 9/4/2006 6:05 AM >>>


At 5:29 AM -0400 9/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
>A well-done summary of the situation, Adam. You are one smart guy.



Thanks prof.

I hope LSE's raw research data and some kind of fuller/background
report will be made available.  It's not that I don't trust anyone,
and I don't believe a group from a place like LSE could be bought off
(anymore than a reputable US university located in a chilly part of
upstate NY could), but this stuff does sound like it's getting a
little narrowed. Person(s) controlling the TOR have a great influence
on the output.

Adam



>No, to be less cynical, I presume that the constituency will
"request"
>that the changes be made and the LSE group will decide whether to
make
>the requested changes. The issue is whether that decision comes after
a
>few beatings and trips to Guantanamo.
>
>>>>  Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 9/2/2006 4:08 AM >>>
>So.  Let's say I think a particular constituency is completely
>useless: captured, undemocratic, not transparent ...  basically a
>sham of what a constituency should be.  I've responded to the LSE
>survey, sent comments, etc.  Tried to provide good clear criticism.
>
>Now my comments, and perhaps many many similar comments, will be
>"corrected" by a single person from that constituency?