[acm-tf] Determining a sanction is the primary issue

On 04.05.2011 00:39, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> [...]
>>   If found guilty (for some sense of "guilty" that we will also
>>   determine) then sanction will be applied.
> 
> I am pretty worried by both the choice of words and terms, as well as
> by the general mindset behind.

That's what we were talking about Monday at about 12:15.  We didn't call it
"sanction", but used phrases with terms like "three-month advice", "contract
termination", or similar.  I think "sanction" conveys the idea.

As for the mindset, my concern is simply to avoid going "bananas"[1].  I
don't want millions of users to be at the mercy of a few unscrupulous
profiteers, and I know that writing "please be scrupulous" in a BCP is not
enough to stop them.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas_%28film%29

> Expecting the legitimate user(s) of IP resources to block packets within their
> network, or to interfere with operational aspects, like requiring a particular
> handling of ports or protocols, is definitely out of scope.

That's what I wanted to know.

> Sorry for the rant and the use of strong words

I don't think you should be sorry for speaking clearly.  Actually, that
improves communication effectiveness :-)