[At-Large] Response to the Ombudsman's report

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

We are thinking along precisely the same lines - this is one of the features
of the proposal I'm drafting actually.

Of course, this would require proactive identification by the staff etc if
there were any questions about the suitability of an applicant to make sure
that the 'silence = assent' process wouldn't lead inadvertently to an
approval that shouldn't happen.

On 16/02/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > Perhaps your comments to the committee about improving ALACs approval
> > process predated my involvement - or perhaps I need more coffee. In
> either
> > case, in this public forum, may I suggest that the present time would be
> > ideal to forward them for discussion?
>
> Sure, I repeat my earlier suggestion that we adopt a "default approve"
> policy for ALS applications.  Applicants should be deemed to meet the
> requirements and therefore approved unless specific reasons of
> non-compliance are identified.  If no one on the ALAC has actively
> voiced objections and called for a vote by the deadline, we approve the
> applicant.
>
> --Wendy
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>



-- 
-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype:
nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070216/e8112422/attachment.html