Re: Guidance needed: Resource Providers acceptable practices?

[Vernon Schryver <[e-mail]>]

> From: Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>

> ...
> Looking to the basic issues of incentive, I find no good incentive
> aspect in the idea that a few customers of spammer ISP's be allowed to
> demand that all IETF mailing list support sites must also support
> spamming.

It's high time the IETF stopped pretending to be completely open.  It's
not and never was.  Consider the difficulties someone without access to
email has in participating in the email lists.  Are the list operators
required to accept and send paper mail?

Or consider it this way.  The IETF is swamped with people who want to
Participate in the Standards Process but lack knowledge.  Anyone who
doesn't know enough about spam, spam friendly ISPs, mail relays, cheap
dropboxes, and so forth to not be bothered by any reasonable blocks is
also too ignorant about the issues discussed in an IETF mailing list to
participate.

Yes, such a bar might make it harder for people completely without
clues to quietly soak them up from the mailing lists.  Tough.  You
can't get into school without having mastered some prerequisites.

People who insist on patronizing spam-friendly ISP but who also know
about spam are too unlikely to understand the long term point of view
necessary to build usable open standards.  They are too likely to have
pathological misunderstandings of the tragedy of the commons.  Yes, of
course, there are exceptions.  People can be compelled by economic and
other forces to use spam-friendly ISP's, but those with enough clues to
help will use mail relays, cheap dropboxes, or whatever without making
a big deal about it.

No, expecting someone to pay $20/month for a dropbox to participate in
the IETF is fine.  People who cannot afford $20/month have more urgent
personal needs and should not be spending their time on the IETF.


Vernon Schryver,  [e-mail]