On Apr 3, 9:00am, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
}
} To look at it another way (oh good grief!): their enjoyment of access
} to the well for some period of time, at the pleasure of its owner,
} was a positive for them. With the cut-off, that positive no longer exists.
} That does NOT result in a negative: it's merely the cessation of
} a positive, returning the balance to zero.
}
} No negative, no damage.
Sorry, but this is not a zero-sum game, and you can't have it both ways.
The whole Internet is built on cooperative access to resources. By your
argument, no one was damaged when that Pakistani ISP null-routed half
the planet to block access to YouTube, because no one should have
expected to have access to the Ineternet in the first place.
} As an aside, let me note that the correct mental perspective for the
} villagers (above) is not to blame the keeper of the well, who has,
} after all, generously shared resources for some period of time. It's
} to blame the baker, who drew water in excess every day, severely
} impacting my ability to use my own resource.
I agree completely with that statement, but who is to blame or who gets
blamed has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the description
of the end result.
And if there's anything being said about blame, the salient point being
made in the BCP is that when it comes to block-listings, neither the
baker nor the keeper of the well gets blamed. The one who gets blamed
is he who advised the keeper about who to cut off.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg