On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:34:19 -0500 David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Originally, the excuse for pulling DAFIF was the Australian > government's attempt to sue Jeppesen for royalties on Australian aero > data, or something similar. Now, the reason is simply national > security. I wonder if the Australian thing died out, or if it was > just easier to use the security boilerplate than to get into the > complex legal details.
I'd bet the latter -- I suspect the national security-ish lines in
the FR entry are in there only because every decision the Federal
government makes anymore gets some kind of "national security"
justification.
What I didn't see was some kind of notification about an official
comment period. Normally, when a policy change takes place, the
first announcement in the FR mentions a period during which comments
can be made. I didn't see that in there. This is significant in
that comments made in response to policy changes like this actually
do matter. I had breakfast yesterday with two senior executives
in the Federal bureaucracy (both GS 15 or higher) who were very
emphatic that commenting during the comments period is worthwhile:
in subsequently making their decision official or in changing it
to something else, the agency in question *must* substantively
address the comments received.
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgpnsNQmBlsEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
