- From: hellekin <how@zoethical.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:27:09 +0100
- To: public-interop-remedies@w3.org
On 2/23/22 5:02 PM, Cory Doctorow wrote: > Hey folks - revisiting this and taking the group's temperature. > > I'd like to propose that we produce three "technologists' sign-on > letters" on interop mandates: > > 1. A proposal for mandates to come with safe harbours based on > requirements; > > 2. A proposal for developing requirements; > > 3. A proposal for policing compliance with standards and/or > requirements-based equivalents. > > I have a pretty concrete idea on #1, and would like us to do some > structured work to produce 2 and 3. > > What do you all think? I'm especially interested in people who are > really adamant that we *shouldn't* do this, and to work through those > objections. > I still think that anything that will bring more work to compliance enforcers than to the institutions that need to be regulated will aggravate the situation, and plays in favor of the industry that must be regulated. It's simple energetic logic. You can't have n institutions to regulate and one enforcer to watch them all. It won't work. It does not work for finance, it won't work for tech giants. == hk
Received on Friday, 25 February 2022 08:27:45 UTC