not quite converging. i think there are fundamental
flaws in RTI approach to 'transparency' which make it
prone to becoming instrument for spamming the system
(like PIL is slipping into becoming instrument of
things contrary to its intended purposes).
RTI may be here to stay, but it is not mandatory! we
could use the fact that it exists as proof of
commitment to transparency to shore up other access to
info options if we prefer those, also so they do not
atrophy in the shadow of RTI.
a logical discussion of student info needs at SPA
might not lead to the NAC drafted sub-clause of
sub-section at all and there is nothing that prevents
institutions from mutually agreeing other regimes for
info access. nor is there any basis for assumption of
adversarial starting point just because some
RTI-smitten chap in a gnctd that has lost all its
bearings in prolonged extra-constitutional fashionable
gvnnce drift, asked some students to fill Form-A! dda
for instance is rather generous with info and time to
students and so are several other agencies. i would
much rather we build on those friendly foundations.
--- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So parallel lines are converging!
>
> Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) particulars of recipients of
> concessions, permits or authorisations granted by
> it;
> of the RTI ACT includes this already ... just have
> to
> fight.
>
> Otherwise the RT ACT 2005 is a horribly bad piece of
> legislation rammed through by the idiots at the NAC
> who will no doubt be suitably rewarded for having
> sold
> out by being appointed Chief or Information
> Commissioners.
>
> The Delhi RTI Act is so much better, and i am
> informed
> that the Maharashtra one was quite effective too.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Just as a student ought not to crib that he is
> > > required to "book" a reference journal from his
> > > library, similarly a normal waiting period of 15
> > > days
> > > is not too bad for any formal process.
> >
> > > Insofar as students are concerned, I think
> > > concessional photocopying charges could be
> > > considered
> >
> > ---------
> > Prashant, Subhadeep, others at SPA
> >
> > do persuade SPA authorities to raise such points.
> > unless all types of info-users raise their issues,
> > normative principles for RTI for different
> purposes
> > will not evolve.
> >
> > gita
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
flaws in RTI approach to 'transparency' which make it
prone to becoming instrument for spamming the system
(like PIL is slipping into becoming instrument of
things contrary to its intended purposes).
RTI may be here to stay, but it is not mandatory! we
could use the fact that it exists as proof of
commitment to transparency to shore up other access to
info options if we prefer those, also so they do not
atrophy in the shadow of RTI.
a logical discussion of student info needs at SPA
might not lead to the NAC drafted sub-clause of
sub-section at all and there is nothing that prevents
institutions from mutually agreeing other regimes for
info access. nor is there any basis for assumption of
adversarial starting point just because some
RTI-smitten chap in a gnctd that has lost all its
bearings in prolonged extra-constitutional fashionable
gvnnce drift, asked some students to fill Form-A! dda
for instance is rather generous with info and time to
students and so are several other agencies. i would
much rather we build on those friendly foundations.
--- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So parallel lines are converging!
>
> Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) particulars of recipients of
> concessions, permits or authorisations granted by
> it;
> of the RTI ACT includes this already ... just have
> to
> fight.
>
> Otherwise the RT ACT 2005 is a horribly bad piece of
> legislation rammed through by the idiots at the NAC
> who will no doubt be suitably rewarded for having
> sold
> out by being appointed Chief or Information
> Commissioners.
>
> The Delhi RTI Act is so much better, and i am
> informed
> that the Maharashtra one was quite effective too.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Just as a student ought not to crib that he is
> > > required to "book" a reference journal from his
> > > library, similarly a normal waiting period of 15
> > > days
> > > is not too bad for any formal process.
> >
> > > Insofar as students are concerned, I think
> > > concessional photocopying charges could be
> > > considered
> >
> > ---------
> > Prashant, Subhadeep, others at SPA
> >
> > do persuade SPA authorities to raise such points.
> > unless all types of info-users raise their issues,
> > normative principles for RTI for different
> purposes
> > will not evolve.
> >
> > gita
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com