Shri Sudhakar Dalela,
Deputy Secretary, DoC / CPIO
Dear Sir,
Please refer to my request dated 07.11.05 for
disclosure of sector-wise information about
process/consultations for WTO-GATS offer on DoC
website under s.4 of RTI Act as well as in Parliament,
at
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00662.shtml
(in continuation of request of 17.10.05, arising from
my letters dated 12.09.03, 15.08.05 and 16/18.09.05,
and DoC response and my reply of 20.10.05).
I reiterate my requests in view of two developments
reported in the press yesterday, viz, PMO announcing
launch of 1 lakh crore Urban Renewal Mission and
Planning Commission estimating expenditure of over
70000 cr on Right to Education Bill and Unorganized
Sector Social Security Bill. I specifically request
that the following be disclosed on DoC website and
also in Parliament:
* CBA for WTO-GATS (primarily urban) in relation to
URM, etc, investments for consonant/enabling urban
reforms
(I believe WTO-GATS formulations in isolation from
their enabling reforms are bound to lead to conflicts
(including with other trade sectors), besides which
formulations for urban reforms / incentive investments
may themselves appear to be or actually be
inadequately considered and WTO-GATS driven. Both
apprehensions warrant responsibility at the highest
level and hence discussion in Parliament).
* Implications of WTO-GATS negotiations for
legislation that Parliament will consider in coming
sessions.
(In my letter of 15.08.05 I had mentioned the MCD Act
amendment based on the model municipal law to which
URM funds are linked and which several commitments in
WTO-GATS offer appear to presume; in my letter of
18.09.05 I had pointed out the regime under
formulation by MoEF for domestic private participation
that is pre-empted by certain commitments in the
WTO-GATS offer; the Minister himself has lately
raised, in context of FDI in retail, the issue of
small enterprises for which national commission has
proposed social security Bill arising from a policy to
whose adoption URM funds are linked, etc, etc).
* Details of sector-specific formulations to extent of
names of all those who were consulted
(Most formulations nowadays involve
stakeholder-consultations. This semi-formal practice,
very popular among stakeholder-groups, is acceptable
only if all formal entities are consulted in
prescribed manner and mechanisms are in place for due
consideration of independent views either at
formulation stages or on outcomes before they become
binding. In case of WTO-GATS resort to semi-formal
practice warranted special care because the issues are
not widely understood. There is, instead, inexplicable
reluctance on part of DoC to reveal even names of
those consulted, even as there is more to services
than trade and sectors need to know who is being
consulted on their behalf in inter-connected matters).
I urge you to view my requests for disclosure in
perspective of an important objective of the 1 lakh
crore URM investment that supports the WTO-GATS offer
pertaining to *public participation and disclosure*
and my requests for discussion in Parliament also in
context of news of differences between US Senate and
Congress over increasing H-1B Visas (which I
understand is a key demand from our side), at:
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1302128.cms
Lastly, I wish to clarify again that I have been
writing to DoC not from any general position for or
against WTO/GATS but simply as a qualified planner
affected by specific (and in my view inadequately
considered) commitments in respect of urban planning
and related professional services as well as in
respect of various other services to whose providers
and consumers I provide professional services. I
believe my requests, arising from issues that I have
been raising before, now fall in the purview of s.4 of
RTI Act. If you think otherwise, I request you to
kindly forward my e-mail to a concerned official. I am
copying it to all to whom my e-mail of 17.10.05 was
addressed for the same.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Deputy Secretary, DoC / CPIO
Dear Sir,
Please refer to my request dated 07.11.05 for
disclosure of sector-wise information about
process/consultations for WTO-GATS offer on DoC
website under s.4 of RTI Act as well as in Parliament,
at
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00662.shtml
(in continuation of request of 17.10.05, arising from
my letters dated 12.09.03, 15.08.05 and 16/18.09.05,
and DoC response and my reply of 20.10.05).
I reiterate my requests in view of two developments
reported in the press yesterday, viz, PMO announcing
launch of 1 lakh crore Urban Renewal Mission and
Planning Commission estimating expenditure of over
70000 cr on Right to Education Bill and Unorganized
Sector Social Security Bill. I specifically request
that the following be disclosed on DoC website and
also in Parliament:
* CBA for WTO-GATS (primarily urban) in relation to
URM, etc, investments for consonant/enabling urban
reforms
(I believe WTO-GATS formulations in isolation from
their enabling reforms are bound to lead to conflicts
(including with other trade sectors), besides which
formulations for urban reforms / incentive investments
may themselves appear to be or actually be
inadequately considered and WTO-GATS driven. Both
apprehensions warrant responsibility at the highest
level and hence discussion in Parliament).
* Implications of WTO-GATS negotiations for
legislation that Parliament will consider in coming
sessions.
(In my letter of 15.08.05 I had mentioned the MCD Act
amendment based on the model municipal law to which
URM funds are linked and which several commitments in
WTO-GATS offer appear to presume; in my letter of
18.09.05 I had pointed out the regime under
formulation by MoEF for domestic private participation
that is pre-empted by certain commitments in the
WTO-GATS offer; the Minister himself has lately
raised, in context of FDI in retail, the issue of
small enterprises for which national commission has
proposed social security Bill arising from a policy to
whose adoption URM funds are linked, etc, etc).
* Details of sector-specific formulations to extent of
names of all those who were consulted
(Most formulations nowadays involve
stakeholder-consultations. This semi-formal practice,
very popular among stakeholder-groups, is acceptable
only if all formal entities are consulted in
prescribed manner and mechanisms are in place for due
consideration of independent views either at
formulation stages or on outcomes before they become
binding. In case of WTO-GATS resort to semi-formal
practice warranted special care because the issues are
not widely understood. There is, instead, inexplicable
reluctance on part of DoC to reveal even names of
those consulted, even as there is more to services
than trade and sectors need to know who is being
consulted on their behalf in inter-connected matters).
I urge you to view my requests for disclosure in
perspective of an important objective of the 1 lakh
crore URM investment that supports the WTO-GATS offer
pertaining to *public participation and disclosure*
and my requests for discussion in Parliament also in
context of news of differences between US Senate and
Congress over increasing H-1B Visas (which I
understand is a key demand from our side), at:
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1302128.cms
Lastly, I wish to clarify again that I have been
writing to DoC not from any general position for or
against WTO/GATS but simply as a qualified planner
affected by specific (and in my view inadequately
considered) commitments in respect of urban planning
and related professional services as well as in
respect of various other services to whose providers
and consumers I provide professional services. I
believe my requests, arising from issues that I have
been raising before, now fall in the purview of s.4 of
RTI Act. If you think otherwise, I request you to
kindly forward my e-mail to a concerned official. I am
copying it to all to whom my e-mail of 17.10.05 was
addressed for the same.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com