Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:06:51 -0400
I repeat what I wrote in reply to the harms discussion earlier.
A single, unilaterally amendable contract and complete structural
separation are the tools Staff and the Board selected to address harms.
Do they have a duty to use the tools others prefer?
Are their choices of tools ineffective?
Again, mileage varies.
Is their choice of tools unnecessary because they did not enumerate
That too seems to be a matter of opinion.
A "harms" group that rejects ab initio the choice, utility or
necessity of either or both of these tools can't be any more useful
than the "economists" who offered data invariant conclusions.
I'm not a fan of the single contract, and especially not the single
unilaterally amendable contract, or the Zero or Two Percent solutions.
I sincerely hope that the "harms" sub-group will not ignore the
numerous representations by Staff that one, or both, of these tools
credibly address credible probabilities of actual harm.