Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users

[Phil Howard <phil () whistler intur net>]

Karl Denninger wrote:

> The problem with this is that someone, sooner or later, is going to 
> take a run at people trying to set up what amounts to a set of contractual
> requirements that exceed legal requirements - and then enforce them network
> wide.
>
> The collusive aspect of this is downright scary, especially when coupled
> with threats of depeering, active denial of service attacks, etc.
>
> I happen to be an "anti-spammer", but when you get to the point that you
> start telling people what they have to put in their contracts as an industry,
> such that if Person #1 commits an act on a *completely unrelated* system
> they get their contract voided you're treading on very, very thin ice.

Anyone who is told by someone else what they must put in their contracts
in order to peer or just communication with that someone else, can simply
ignore that someone else.  The way it will really end up working will be
that the vast majority of network businesses will make a decision based on
the dollar/euro/whatever.

> That looks an awful lot like an industry-wide blacklist, and those are
> dangerously close to being per-se illegal.

It looks to me like a separate block of network users.  People don't play
the same game unless they are playing by the same rules.  But what those
rules are will be the results of the negotiations, which result from what
the parties assert that they want.  Sure, one or the other party may put
forth terms/rules which they insist must be agreed on, or not game.


> There's nothing wrong with a single provider putting whatever provisions 
> in their agreements they see fit - you're always free to shop for a new
> provider.  However, when industry actions conspire to basically *force*
> certain provisions to be included in *everyone's* contracts, and those
> provisions go beyond "don't do illegal things", then IMHO you're exerting
> force that needs to be very carefully thought out.

What force?  I don't see any force.  For example, Microsoft is not forcing
me to use NT.


> There IS a means to solve the problem otherwise - that is, for the industry
> to make "throw away, instant registration" accounts disappear.  The problem 
> with what is being done now is that the entire industry is being forced to
> provide a "safe haven" for a PARTICULAR marketing tactic.

Throw away, instant registration, is a money maker.  The vast majority do not
spam.  Instead, they eventually start paying.  It may not be break even today,
but it is raising the revenues, and with the huge price:earnings ratios that
internet businesses are being valuated on today, this practice is indeed making
money on paper right now.  It simply will not stop until some other choice
makes more money, or looses less money.

So how do you propose to stop it without some kind of coalition tactic that
could be labeled "force"?

The football players and the basketball players are negotiating playing a
game together.  But what game shall they play?  It may end up being golf.

-- 
 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at intur.net        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      philh at intur.net       * --