At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility.
Fine.
Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous complaint of a denied applicant. In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of this applicant). --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/