On 28/Feb/11 02:26, John Levine wrote:
I disagree here and note that legislators may look to this BCP later
if they intended to write such legislation.
Agreed, promoting de facto standards seems consistent with common law.
Having helped some actual legislators write actual legislation, I
find it utterly implausible that anyone would ever legislate the
practices of DNSBLs in other than the most general terms.
Is that because of their inability to do otherwise? (Do they do
better with traffic tickets?)
Note that in the US they're protected by 47 US 230 which says they can
do anything they want so long as there's a plausible good faith basis
for doing so. Case law confirms that making mistakes does not mean
you weren't acting in good faith.
BCPs are valid world wide, though. As unusual as it may be for IETF
documents to inspect business models, I'd cast my vote in favor of
section 2.2.5 just for pioneering such path.
+1, that is.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg