At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 09:45:28AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
>> >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
>> >I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
>> >process.
>>
>> If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process moves too
>> far down the road, then it has actually *saved* time, as that obstacle
>> won't have to be faced later after the policy is more fully developed or
>> when it is implemented. No one claims that this doesn't add some time to
>> the process. But it does not slow the process down "indefinitely," which
>> is all I was trying to address.
>
>I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as
>the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then
>after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see, there is
>nothing to stop an infinite regress.
Hi Kent,
That's not how the process works.
Please read the Paris Draft before making
any further inaccurate statements.
Thanks,
Jay.
