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@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@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@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart