DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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    |   froomkin@law.tm
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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>