Shri Sudhakar Dalela,
Deputy Secretary, DoC / CPIO
Dear Sir,
This is in continuation of my eml of 23.11.05
(included in this message).
On 03.12.05: (a) HT reported (p.17) that on
Monday-Tuesday Commerce Minister is meeting
representatives of political parties and their
affiliate unions and interested groups to evolve a
national consensus on WTO issues including services;
(b) in the forenoon PM launched the reform-linked
100000 cr JNURM to make cities attractive investment
destinations; and (c) in the afternoon Left parties
called for discussion in Parliament on WTO issues
including GATS.
Meetings for political consensus and/or debate in
Parliament are likely to focus on priority concerns of
political parties / unions / WTO groups and seem
unlikely to cover several sector-specific issues or
issues arising from coincidence of JNURM and GATS
impetuses. However, information about rationale and
basis in assessments/consultations of sector-wise GATS
offers is of interest to urban service (including
professional) sectors in view of JNURM even if the
GATS offers in respect of them are not negotiated at
Hong Kong.
DoC has, presumably, prepared some document for the
meetings / debate that has, presumably, some
information about the basis of sector-specific GATS
offers. I request publication of the same on DoC
website.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: all named for RTI on DoC website, as in ml of
23.11.05
====eml of 23.11.05====
> 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
>
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Deputy Secretary, DoC / CPIO
Dear Sir,
This is in continuation of my eml of 23.11.05
(included in this message).
On 03.12.05: (a) HT reported (p.17) that on
Monday-Tuesday Commerce Minister is meeting
representatives of political parties and their
affiliate unions and interested groups to evolve a
national consensus on WTO issues including services;
(b) in the forenoon PM launched the reform-linked
100000 cr JNURM to make cities attractive investment
destinations; and (c) in the afternoon Left parties
called for discussion in Parliament on WTO issues
including GATS.
Meetings for political consensus and/or debate in
Parliament are likely to focus on priority concerns of
political parties / unions / WTO groups and seem
unlikely to cover several sector-specific issues or
issues arising from coincidence of JNURM and GATS
impetuses. However, information about rationale and
basis in assessments/consultations of sector-wise GATS
offers is of interest to urban service (including
professional) sectors in view of JNURM even if the
GATS offers in respect of them are not negotiated at
Hong Kong.
DoC has, presumably, prepared some document for the
meetings / debate that has, presumably, some
information about the basis of sector-specific GATS
offers. I request publication of the same on DoC
website.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: all named for RTI on DoC website, as in ml of
23.11.05
====eml of 23.11.05====
> 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
>
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs