>I'm never clear on why I'm supposed to be upset about model legislation. [...] Moreover, especially on technical matters, it seems likely that private-sourced

>I'm never clear on why I'm supposed to be upset about model legislation. [...] Moreover, especially on technical matters, it seems likely that private-sourced model legislation would be a superior starting point than whatever leg' staff would come up with themselves. The problem is that the legislation will address issues of a specific group of stakeholders, those that participated in the process, to the detriment of others who did not. Even when other parties comment, by the time the bulk of the framework is in place, momentum is against the new voices in the process. This bias is consistent in industry model legislation - but there are other forms of model legislation that don't suffer the same risk. Since funding is a prerequisite of concerted professional co-ordination, this means as we move to a situation where model legislation is more dominant, we're systemically favoring groups that are already very resourced. In essence we're only democratizing legislation to incumbents, which means we aren't democratizing it at all. This sounds very theoretical, but it's anything but. I've gone through records of various industry groups as they put together legislative agendas. Once you see how self serving the language and framework is, the risks become very clear. This isn't to say that industry shouldn't comment on legislation or provide input on