On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Restaurant reviewing is luxury, not infrastructure. Revise to "health
departments" and it seems entirely reasonable.
Health inspections are a regulatory/legal requirement - compliance is
legally mandatory, and if there are fines, that's also part of the
legislative framework. Not to mention that there's usually only one you
have to deal with. It's part of the implicit (or explicit) societal
contract that a restaurant undertakes to comply with by existing.
That's a huge qualitative difference between that and some random
self-selected guy showing up at the cash register who says "your bacon was
horrible, pay me money or I'll shut you down". Those guys usually carry
baseball bats.
I will not be silenced by creative use of violent imagery! The
question under discussion is something like "should the BCP document
contain guidance concerning compensation for preferential treatment?"
in specific, should the section now numbered 2.2.5:
2.2.5. Conflict of Interest
Some DNSBLs used for blocking/negative reputation have had a
practise of requiring fees or donations to charities from the listee
for delisting.
It is generally considered entirely appropriate for a DNSBL to
charge for access to it by its users - the definition of a commercial
DNSBL.
However, the practise of requiring a listee to pay for delisting
from a negative connotation DNSBL steers perilously close to notions
of extortion, blackmail or a "protection racket". Even if such
accusations are entirely unjustified the practise causes uproar and
damage to the DNSBLs reputation, if not the entire DNSBL mechanism as
a whole. Colloquially, "it smells bad".
Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or
require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is
RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations
not be used.
END SEC. 2.2.5 EXTRACT
be changed? It looks okay to me, as long as we are painfully,
explicitly clear that the "users" are sys-admins and not end-users.
The thing is, the random self-selected guy doesn't have all the power
he says he has. Were he honest, instead of "your bacon was horrible,
pay me money or I'll shut you down" he would be threatening "your
bacon was horrible, pay me money or I'll list you on my list of places
where I didn't like the bacon."
A good example of real-life reputation listing services are lists
that, for instance, enumerate places that were not able to satisfy
requirements of a food intolerance.
Such as this whitelist:
http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=gluten+free&find_loc=Chicago,+IL
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg