Architexturez. wrote:
>> India's Revised Offer on Trade in Services
>> http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
Anand wrote:
> now this is an exercise. care somebody draft a proper letter?
> i don't think the whole of architectural practice falls under commerce
> ministry (culture, HRD, urban affairs, are definitely involved). could
> we move to persuade these guys to let at least UN 86711/12 alone? these
> surely touch on more than commerce? how should we draw the line?
---
eeeks. thanks for liberating this from MoC web. when is the Hongkong
round? next week?
it does seem good idea to point out the difference between sub-classes in
the UN code (poor ole planning has problem, it is sub-class!) and
implications of other details (reflecting what lawyers might call
non-application-of-mind; btw, how come legal consultancy services are
excluded? news reports suggested otherwise).
letter draft / points to raise would help. I will have a go for planning
(with bit about architecture, legit-ly, as for some curious reason only
limitation to market access for planning is establishment only through
incorporation as partnership firm constituted by Architects!)
am copying w/o apologies for cross-posting to mpisg-media with rqst for
priority over other threads and to forward architexturez archive url:
http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000129.shtml
- gita
Anand wrote:
> now this is an exercise. care somebody draft a proper letter?
>
> prem, guys, you online? i think we better write to the ministry
> explaining the ramification of their choice. the scope of services is
> defined in the UN classifications 8671-76 (on the Architexturez page
> #129, link below) mean a lot more than just commerce -- so the ministry
> better re-think on architectural services issues when this comes in for
> consultation.
>
> i don't think the whole of architectural practice falls under commerce
> ministry (culture, HRD, urban affairs, are definitely involved). could
> we move to persuade these guys to let at least UN 86711/12 alone? these
> surely touch on more than commerce? how should we draw the line?
>
> the documents are online, the consultation document archived at:
> http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/tns-oind-01.pdf
>
> and also see:
> http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/wto-cns-pap.htm
> (explains what's what)
>
> - anand (who has no faith in IIA and the other self-appointed decent
> fellows in the business)
>
> Architexturez. wrote:
>> India's Revised Offer on Trade in Services
>> http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
>>
>> looks like the endgame, this document will go out for consultation soon.
>> CoA has no real role in this anymore (not practicing architect, there
>> was a CoA committee which pontificated and disbanded without conclusion
>> -- it was populated with architects who go on-and-on about 'indianness')
>> IIA is sleeping as usual.
>>
>> more to follow on the Architexturez archive page...
>> http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000129.shtml
>>
>> (murder on rue morgue, we will rue the demise of Indian architecture, on
>> the wailing wall, yours, as usual)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> in-enaction mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
>
>> India's Revised Offer on Trade in Services
>> http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
Anand wrote:
> now this is an exercise. care somebody draft a proper letter?
> i don't think the whole of architectural practice falls under commerce
> ministry (culture, HRD, urban affairs, are definitely involved). could
> we move to persuade these guys to let at least UN 86711/12 alone? these
> surely touch on more than commerce? how should we draw the line?
---
eeeks. thanks for liberating this from MoC web. when is the Hongkong
round? next week?
it does seem good idea to point out the difference between sub-classes in
the UN code (poor ole planning has problem, it is sub-class!) and
implications of other details (reflecting what lawyers might call
non-application-of-mind; btw, how come legal consultancy services are
excluded? news reports suggested otherwise).
letter draft / points to raise would help. I will have a go for planning
(with bit about architecture, legit-ly, as for some curious reason only
limitation to market access for planning is establishment only through
incorporation as partnership firm constituted by Architects!)
am copying w/o apologies for cross-posting to mpisg-media with rqst for
priority over other threads and to forward architexturez archive url:
http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000129.shtml
- gita
Anand wrote:
> now this is an exercise. care somebody draft a proper letter?
>
> prem, guys, you online? i think we better write to the ministry
> explaining the ramification of their choice. the scope of services is
> defined in the UN classifications 8671-76 (on the Architexturez page
> #129, link below) mean a lot more than just commerce -- so the ministry
> better re-think on architectural services issues when this comes in for
> consultation.
>
> i don't think the whole of architectural practice falls under commerce
> ministry (culture, HRD, urban affairs, are definitely involved). could
> we move to persuade these guys to let at least UN 86711/12 alone? these
> surely touch on more than commerce? how should we draw the line?
>
> the documents are online, the consultation document archived at:
> http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/tns-oind-01.pdf
>
> and also see:
> http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/wto-cns-pap.htm
> (explains what's what)
>
> - anand (who has no faith in IIA and the other self-appointed decent
> fellows in the business)
>
> Architexturez. wrote:
>> India's Revised Offer on Trade in Services
>> http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
>>
>> looks like the endgame, this document will go out for consultation soon.
>> CoA has no real role in this anymore (not practicing architect, there
>> was a CoA committee which pontificated and disbanded without conclusion
>> -- it was populated with architects who go on-and-on about 'indianness')
>> IIA is sleeping as usual.
>>
>> more to follow on the Architexturez archive page...
>> http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000129.shtml
>>
>> (murder on rue morgue, we will rue the demise of Indian architecture, on
>> the wailing wall, yours, as usual)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> in-enaction mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
>