Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 10/30/2010 7:18 PM, John Leslie wrote:
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.
It's not a business model that's being proscribed, it's conflict of
interest or the appearance of conflict of interest.
Then (IMHO) it should be stated as a conflict-of-interest issue.
In general conflicts of interest call for full disclosure, not
prohibitions.
At least with the notion of paying for delisting from a block/negative
reputation list.
There is an actual cost involved in "early expiration" of a listing:
I'm not comfortable forbidding a charge for that.
However, I do think it has proven an unproductive business practice,
and I'm quite comfortable recommending against it (in addition to
noting the (widespread) perception of a conflict of interest).
I think our recommendation should also address the question of how
quickly a listing expires: 7 days (UCEPROTECT) is clearly excessive,
but one day might be reasonable.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg