the whole 867##

gita says:

> oops, was only joking. i understand at least some of the larger
> issues. just thought that the patently stupid sector specific
> commitment on planning via architecture firms, defying CPC distinction
> itself, was a good place to start, also since all limitations are also
> illusory for plg, to get to saying whole 867 needs re-look.

i don't think this is an issue. is this the best we can do? IIA has 
fuddled for a few years on GATS, and CoA has fiddled a committee (i'll 
publish the names of committee members, with their inane comments, soon 
as they come into the public domain). and now a planner is only joking! 
what else is new?

867## looks quite alright to me. the classification is very good (i ran 
an algernon test or two on it in the afternoon), very consistent, very 
upper-merged. i think the only questions are...

* how much of 867## fall under commerce ministry, where they can decide
  quite by themselves (i think a lot, and for the good. globalization
  will stimulate the profession, addle some hormones, soften some teeth
  and destroy the monopoly of some 3-4 'city and media' and 'humane
  sustainable environments' types who access global capital right now.
  also, lotsa young guys want a crack at foreign markets, so good)...

* how much of 867## fall under multiple agencies within the government.
  are they all consulted? is everybody satisfied with the MinCom
  position on 86711/12/13 especially? (i don't think so. the MinCom
  approach doesn't even satisfy the UN/Unesco aspects of the
  classification, either architectural practices stands for culture,
  in which case they are placeful; or they do not, in which case they
  are placeless -- MinCom thinks they are placeless, half the GoI
  would disagree. i think almost everybody in practice, barring perhaps
  the aforementioned foreign-funded NGO would disagree)

so, anyway, i'll go by myself and make a couple representations. hope to 
localize the 'placeful' elements of architectural practice, 
here-and-there. let's see.

- anand.