Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase

[Phillip Vandry <vandry () Mlink NET>]

> > Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny
> > access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to
> > arbitrary standards of the list-maker.
> >
> > Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you
> > think the two similar issues differ.
>
> They are massively different both in scope and intent.  Among other things:
>
> 1.    "Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control 
>       over address space.  The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly
>       control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP
>       traffic exchange in the norm.

Fees are irrelevant. A monopoly is not a monopoly if they don't charge
people money?

> 2.    You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if
>       you find yourself RBLd.  You can't go somewhere else to get address
>       space (back to central control again).

That is only a difference in scope of deployment. It is still, as Derek
argued, the "Same basic principle". What if the same number of people had
confidence in the RBL as in ARIN's authority to delegate addresses?

> 3.    RBL-free access is not an essential facility.  IP address space is.
>       This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all
>       kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to
>       non-discriminatory access to that facility.

You cannot send mail if the whole world has RBL'ed you. That's arguably
essential.
> 4.    Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP
>       relaying conduct (or lack thereof).  Historically speaking, people

I "own" (RFC2008 sense) ARIN approved IP addresses. I also "own" RBL
approved domain names (that is, they are not on the RBL). If domain
names were as limited a resource as IP addresses are, my domain names
would be as precious as my IP addresses, and an RBL domain name would
have the same value as a rogue block of IP addresses.

> 5.    Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade 
>       and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States.  
>       Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is 
>       my private property right to do so.  However, were I to *COLLUDE 
>       WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost
>       of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have 
>       every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am 
>       doing it via SMTP or at the packet level.  

Then you have to decide whether the action is being done with the
intent of restraining trade and limiting competition. That would depend
on the case. Cooperation to use the RBL might just as likely be found
by a court to be illegally collusive as cooperation to ignore somebody's
route announcement.

Really, it is the "same basic principle".

-Phil