Re: Dispute resolution

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> 
> At 5:26 PM -0800 12/21/96, Thom Stark wrote:
> >both efficiency and fairness, a better solution would be to require all
> >SLD registrants to agree to enter into legally-binding arbitration with
> 
> 	Good idea...
> 
> >From section 4.2 of the IAHC proposal:
> 
> >(d)  Each applicant will be required to submit any disputes
> >regarding the selection process to binding arbitration in a
> >location to be specified by IAHC.
> 

Again, where does the IAHC get off trying to claim that it has the right to
compel people to waive rights to formal legal proceedings in order to use a
PUBLIC resource (their own words are being used here)?

Do you have to agree to binding arbitration to walk in the city park?  No.

Do you have to agree to binding arbitration to drive on a public road?  No.

Do you have to agree to binding arbitration to fly on a common-carrier
airline?  No.

Is it LEGAL to compel someone to agree to binding arbitration, waiving their
rights to legal process, to use a resource which is being controlled by a
monopoly (the IAHC) and for which no other reasonable alternative exists? 

I doubt it.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 33 Analog Prefixes, 65 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal