Rich Kulawiec <rsk(_at_)gsp(_dot_)org> wrote:
I'm with you, for the most part, in the spirit of "MUST NOT" (charge
fees) for delisting/expedited delisting/delisting with extra pepperoni
in order to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
But...should this also mean that a DNSBL "MUST NOT" charge fees *to list*
a domain?
I say "yes".
And let's extend this a bit, generalizing the concept of DNSBL: the
same data could be published as (a) a file (b) a torrent (c) a DNS RPZ
or other formats. I think if we're going to argue that some action
is appropriate/inappropriate when the data's in a DNSBL, we should
argue the same thing for that same action when the same data's
repackaged in a different form. So are we prepared to state that
delisting (OR listing) "MUST NOT" involve a fee in all of those cases?
I'm fine with that, by the way.
I dislike such fees as much as the next fellow -- I pretty much
refuse to pay them (instead renumbering the server in the two cases
where I've gotten blacklisted)...
But I really don't follow why documents like this must proscribe
business models.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg