- From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:20:33 +0100 (CET)
- To: Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org>, public-interop-remedies@w3.org
> Il 14/02/2022 20:27 Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org> ha scritto: > > Again, in the spirit of disaggregating the tech/policy questions into bite-sized standalone pieces, I think we can add "design a referee role" to the list of separate, vital questions, which (in my formulation, at least) now stands at: > > 1. A safe harbour regime that allows adoption of a standard API or compliance with the standard's requirements; > > 2. A capture-resistant process for setting those requirements; > > 3. A capture-resistant process for policing both standards compliance and requirements compliance. > > What do you think? In the end, it is also a matter of legal cultures. European regulation tends to be more top-down and prescriptive in detail, while the American tradition is more about limiting as much as possible any necessary constraints to individual freedom. Also, Europe tends to assume that government-led processes are by definition capture-resistant, while the effects of heavy lobbying are given for granted in Washington. Solutions lie somewhere within this range of deviations :-) -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 10:20:49 UTC