[geo-discuss] Inaccuracy of messages on the website

Jo Walsh jo at frot.org
Mon Mar 6 22:19:53 UTC 2006

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Henrion wrote:
> http://publicgeodata.org/ContactYourMEP
> "Try and suggest positive amendments that would make the text
> acceptable"

perhaps "positive suggestions" would be a better rephrasing. What this
text is trying to get at, is "be clear as to why you think this could
be a much better directive, what it is really missing", rather than
just agitating for rejection without making the reasons why, as clear
as possible. If we have the opportunity to get a lot of people sending
a positive message into MEPs inboxes, waking them up about the tools
that can be built with these data sets that could be really useful to
their own information management processes and aims, then that needs
to be stated clearly. 

re. the tabled amendments, the best place that i know of to look is
still the BROEPELS:INSPIRE item at
and details of amendments 36->43 have still not been published there.
i think this is the same reference as was offered in response to your
question... :/
cf http://publicgeodata.org/Analysis_Of_Second_Reading_Amendments
for an overview of the ones we can see now, that will make data more
expensive, or less accessible. 18, 19, 21, 22, 27 look like the really
crucial ones that we should be explicitly mentioning in an open
letter... and that should go out this week so ENVI MEPs have time to
digest it...


More information about the geo-discuss mailing list