Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Some things that would be helpful ...
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Some things that would be helpful ...
- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:17:11 -0500
Yes, I agree these are all laudable operational precepts. But they are
weakened in the context of the existing operational framework; competing
proposals for consideration, all intended to be seen as "first among
It is nigh impossible to wish away the spirit, if not the reason, they were
advanced in the first place.
Someone remarked in an earlier post that the opportunity we have here is a
green field. So let's do some green field imagining then.
I believe it is purely PR to enact regulations that are unenforceable or,
the discovery process for violation so onerous as to make enforcement 'hit
and miss', at best. I also think it is unethical, at best, to promulgate
rules or contractual obligations without the intent to enforce them.
The alternative to my mind is the approach of a positive regulatory
framework. Since we cannot predetermine the method or organisation that
would generate activities harmful to the public interest - business model is
no such predictor - nor enumerate the sundry ways harm could be generated,
we simply say 'here are the outcomes we wish to enable and the [known] harms
we would wish to preclude. Any behaviour that result in these harms or
tends to undermine these positive outcomes is prohibited. And the
sanctions are, as follows: ".
Then what is outlined here provides a perfect template for process.
Carlton A Samuels
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
> Substitute "arbitrary" with something that doesn't suggest the
> advocates of some specific policy choice, among many choices, aren't
> using dice or throwing darts.
> Substitute "reasonable" with something that doesn't suggest that
> everything else is "unreasonable". The advocacy position with which a
> writer associates is, like all other advocacy positions, reasonable
> from some analytical framework.
> Substitute "anti-competitive" with something that recognizes that all
> possible choices are anti-competitive from any one of several
> analytical frameworks.
> Substitute "self-interest" as the sole motive of other advocates, or
> assert the same about yourself when advocating.
> Mutual assured deprecation is not likely to lead to an affirmative
> Enlightened self-interest should be sufficient to solve the problem at