Side note: "the people at IANA" (was: Re: Current requests)

[cowan at ccil.org]

Luc Pardon scripsit:

> Basically, a claim for damage compensation requires proof of a) damage,
> b) a wrongful act, and c) the causal connection between a) and b).

Very true.  But inaction is not an act.  The only way for inaction to
be wrongful is (a) when there exists an affirmative duty to act, or
(b) when there has been an abuse of sound discretion.  The first is
plainly not the case (which wipes out your scenario) nor has IMO the
second.  Establishing either would require strong evidence.

(I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.  However, it is not
the unauthorized practice of law, either.)

> Anyway, we should avoid taking sides, not for fear of lawsuits, but
> simply because it is not the business of this list to take sides. We
> have no jurisdiction over the quality of the thing being tagged, so to
> speak.

It is not our business to take sides, but it is our business, in
certain cases, to choose.  Variant tags are one of those cases.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?