IP: Re: suggested ftc action, unlikely; don't seem motivated, or capable

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 04:00:50 -0500
> From: Deborah Alexander <dsalexan@optonline.net>
> To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>
> Dave -
>
> Of possible interest to Paul Foldes and other IP colleagues - re 
> frustration over lack of substantive acknowledgement by FTC.
>
> In my experience on the Hill last year I found that the only absolutely 
> undeniable way for a request to reach its intended target in an 
> administrative agency - and be dignified with a response - (and then 
> likely *only* because such response is required *by law*) was for such a 
> letter to originate in the office of a congressional Member (does not have 
> to be one's Senator - law requiring non-form response from admin officials 
> applies to House Members as well)
>
> How to get a staffer (we who do all the Congress Person's work) to draft 
> such a Member letter (on Member letterhead) and get that response? - one 
> way to start might be to call /request phone appointment with the Director 
> of Staff at the *local* office of one's US House District Representative, 
> who will *make sure* that your info goes (via the DC office's Legislative 
> Director) to the tech staffer for your Congressperson.
>
> Your own letter by email attachment (most offices use Word, but ask as 
> some use WP) can provide the basic framework for language in your Repr's 
> letter.
>
> I *loved* that agencies and departments were legally required to respond 
> individually to our boss's valid inquires - even when the answers weren't 
> what we wished (and frankly, were not always substantive), at least we 
> knew these inquires did not go unread as well as unheeded...
>
> -Deborah Alexander
> Rutgers Law class of '05
> former Legislative Fellow
> Office of Congressman Bill Pascrell, NJ 08
>
>
> David Farber wrote:
>
> > White I disagree with his point suggesting automatic updating (VERY 
> > DANGEROUS) , the rest makes sense djf
> >
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:34:08 -0500
> > > To: dave@farber.net
> > > From: Paul Foldes <pfoldes@eidmgt.com>
> > >
> > > As Louis Mamakos correctly noted yesterday in a posting excerpted 
> > > below,  the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection (where I was employed in 
> > > 70's, at a time when the Commission took a more pro-active stance to 
> > > protect consumers) has the statutory authority under Sec 5 of the FTC 
> > > Act prohibiting unfair <emphasis added> and deceptive practices to 
> > > inquire into whether Microsoft is adequately informing non-technically 
> > > savvy online consumers regarding the safe use of its products.

....

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/