browse comments: WIPO's RFC3

WIPO's RFC3
Andrew Sullivan (asullivan@sprint.ca)
Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:44:06 -0500 (EST)

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: roc@cs.cmu.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: fezzik@rocketmail.com: "WIPO RFC-3"

I am writing you to express in the strongest possible terms my grave
dissatisfaction with the proposals contained in RFC3.

Rather than repeating arguments that, I've little doubt, you have already
read, I will simply note that I have great sympathy with the arguments
presented by A. Michael Froomkin at

http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/critique.htm

I am certainly not in complete agreement with the position there outlined;
but his critiques of RFC3 are certainly reasonable and cogent ones.

I should point out, also, that WIPO risks making the current arrangements
on the Internet meaningless if it insists upon RFC3 as it is currently
written. There are many Internet users who are especially concerned with
free speech. If official policies endanger the abilitiy of individuals to
pursue their interests -- even at the expense of large, well-funded
corporations -- then some individuals will inevitably collaborate to
devise a way around those official policies. As much has happened several
times in the past on the Internet, albeit in a smaller, more limited way;
nevertheless, there is little reason to suppose such "work-arounds" might
not happen again, on a larger scale. The result of such workarounds, of
course, would be a kind of chaotic development which would function to
set back potential innovation.

I urge you to re-consider RFC3, and to respond in a genuine manner to the
concerns outlined by Professor Froomkin.

Respectfully yours,
Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan | asullivan@sprint.ca (better)| ajsulliv@mcmaster.ca (worse)
* * *
Go to http://www.davidv.net/~ajsulliv/, or issue
'finger -l ajsulliv@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca' to find the AfterStep FAQ file.