On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:28:17 -0800, Sharon Burnett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My point was that I do not believe more
> manditory and legislated rules are necessary. That does stifle innovation.

I agree. What we have to be careful about is who or what is mandating
something. In a standard, whether ISO or ANSI, mandatory requirements
have been estabished through concensus. They usually contain words
such as 'should' 'will', 'shall' or 'must'

now legislative or regulatory mandates rarely if ever involve
concensus or take into account the real world. Little flexibility is
allowed. For example an EPA regulation required the reduction of
arsenic in drinking water. The regulation did not take into account
that in some areas arsenic occurs naturally in the drinking water and
has for eons. For those localities reducing the arsenic levels to meet
the regulatory mandate would impose a financial burden on them.

an another example from years ago involved the establishment of a
federal requirement. Two federal employees involved in developing the
requirement thought they had the perfect solution to satisfy the
requirement. they went into business but failed. Why? because they
failed to understand that there is more than one solution to a
problem. Private industry develop cheaper and more flexible solutions.

Yes federal rule making looks for comments from the public, but that
is not concensus building. that is listening to the squeaky wheel.
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance