RE: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:24:26 -0000
On 20 Feb 2002, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote:
> As local laws already exist, forcing compliance is an issue that
> should be delt with by the local police department. It's not called
> law enforcement for nothing.
This depends on whether we are talking about compliance in the legal sense,
or compliance in terms of what is acceptable practice on the web. I'm sure
most countries around the world, and most networks, would pull child porn
and assist authorities as soon as they became aware of it. The problem is
lesser issues like spam and credit card fraud. How many networks and even
law enforcement agencies deal with credit card fraud unless very large
amounts of money are involved? If you've ever had a fraudulent card order on
the net (and we've had a few, although careful vetting has kept it low), try
getting the police anywhere to deal with it. I think there is a case for
networks to act responsibly here and not just act when the cops start
knocking at the door.
> > If the RIPE NCC is directed by the RIPE membership (who all
> have a share
> > of the power), can this really be called a monopoly?
>
> Yes. Please visit your friendly local legal advisor.
>
Being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's a question of whether you abuse a
monopoly (don't get me started on Nominet.org.uk). I think requiring those
to whom any services are allocated to abide by reasonable terms and
conditions is not abusing a monopoly. Who wouldn't want network providers to
terminate persistent spammers, spamvertizers, etc.?
Paul @ Cactusoft
