Replying to Chedlia and Pat's postings:

I agreed that the issue of whether ICOM needs a new definition of
"museum", and if so what this should be) needs to be debated far
more widely, (and quite obviously in more than one language), through
the regular channels of ICOM's national and international committees, and
through the Advisory Committee in particular.  (In fact, a proposal to
amend the Statutes of ICOM - which a new definition would require - cannot
be placed on a General Assembly agenda without the permission of the
Advisory Committee.)

I agree completely that ICOM News does not have the space to carry all the
correspondence and conflicting views relating to this controversial
matter.  My point was that before a sensible - and wide-ranging - debate
can even start the Executive Council should publish either in ICOM News or
in a special mailing to all 17,000+ ICOM members a clear statement in all
three ICOM languages of what the Executive Council sees as the key
criticisms or concerns about the current ICOM definition, as a very
minimum.

Such an official statement would aim to start the debate and set an agenda
for the necessary discussions within each ICOM's 164 official bodies (116
national committees, 29 international committees, 9 regional bodies and 13
affiliated organisations around the world) that Chedlia called for this
morning.



Patrick Boylan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html