Steve,

I appreciate your reply to my comments about the NFB. After your
explanation, I can understand their position on this particular
lawsuit a little more clearly. I don't agree with their strategy,
but I can see that  much of their position is at least arguable. I
suppose you're right that the NFB's credibility may be enhanced for
supporting a future ruling with DVB that they can tolerate.

Many successful and well-intended organizations delegate certain
matters to their leadership. I still wonder if the general
membership of the NFB participates in the formulation of these
controversial pursuits. Are they, as David suggests, just as
surprised as the rest of us?

Regardless, your points were well made.

Gary

Steve Zielinski wrote:

Gary,

As I understand it, the nfb currently has resolutions which support
DVS on television.  They stress the emergency warning aspects of
dvs, and minimize the visual descriptive features of Descriptive
Video Services.  The leadership, as I understand it, has chosen to
take this action which would effectively eliminate even the warning
emergency messages features which they, supposedly support.  I'm no
lawyer, but I am suspecting that if they get a ruling which says the
fcc went beyond their legal bounds in this matter, the nfb would
then be in a position to request the emergency aspects of DVS,
stating that they would be for clear public benefit, and at the same
time argue that describing scenery and costumes was beyond the
purview of the service as determined by the courts.  They would then
get, reluctantly, the kind of dvs which they as a organization can
tolerate, but help to eliminate the possibility of it spreading
generally.

Steve


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html