Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
I do not think that the economic desires of some players should be allowed
to (1) morph a technical process into an economic regulatory one and/or
(2) use a technical chokepoint to achieve ends they cannot achive through
ordinary political processes.
I also think that there probably is NO reasonable process at this level of
generality and disconnect from the parties affected by the rules
generated. So I do not think this is the proper way to set up the
The David Johnson posting to which you refer does not seem to have hit my
inbox, perhaps a casualty of the recent tinkering with my filters (I have
been innundated with spam recently and have been resorting to various
homebrew countermeasures). Perhaps you could privately forward me a copy
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> That is, you are advocating the "policy market" approach also
> suggested by David Johnson in his earlier posting.
> Still, there may be a desire for uniform policy development - either
> because it's plain necessary (think "minimum requirements"), or
> because it's economically desirable for some key players involved
> (think "UDRP"). In both cases, you need a reasonable process.
> So, once again - what do you folks think about the process
> suggested, when applied within these limits?
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html